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. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks
--Rich
--
To
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
On 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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:
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
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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
Hey,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
script:
SUPPORTED_TESTS=[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now,
though, if we have test ext4/123 and
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:48:04PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
script:
SUPPORTED_TESTS=[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
Ah, I thought support for named
11 matches
Mail list logo
