From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:05:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20130327190512.GA22889@thunk.org> References: <5152F2BB.4000709@sgi.com> <20130327134606.GJ5861@thunk.org> <5153217B.5070909@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]:56473 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753752Ab3C0TFP (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:05:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5153217B.5070909@sgi.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) - Ted