From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:46:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> References: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: xfs-oss , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs To: Rich Johnston Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:56328 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270Ab3C0NqJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:46:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > All xfstest developers, > > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches > for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html > > requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted