[d-kernel] [Fwd: Re: [Unionfs] Xattrs status]

[d-kernel] [Fwd: Re: [Unionfs] Xattrs status]

[Anton Farygin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 103 bytes --]

Могу сказать, что перечисленные правила создания отчета об ошибке весьма 
правильные ;-)

Rgds,
Rider


[-- Attachment #2: Re: [Unionfs] Xattrs status --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3370 bytes --]

From: "Charles P. Wright" <cwright@cs.sunysb.edu>
To: jsingh@ensim.com
Cc: Unionfs <unionfs@filesystems.org>, Dave Quigley <dquigley@ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [Unionfs] Xattrs status
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:23:10 -0500
Message-ID: <1107786190.17572.7.camel@polarbear.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>

On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 00:19, Jaspreet Singh wrote:
> Could you please update me with status of work on xattrs ( and
> LSM/selinux). I know its not top priority for unionfs team :-)
Before we do the xattr work, we need to handle some squashfs bugs, as
that affects many users who use bootable CD images and need Unionfs for
its simple copyup behavior.

> Can I help you reproducing selinux related bugs ?
We are willing to incorporate SELinux fixes, but we need to be careful
not to break anything else.  We also have several more pressing bugs,
but if you provide patches, we can apply them after review.

Here are a few guidelines for these types of bugfixes:
1. Report one bug, or N very closely related bugs, at a time (in
bugzilla)
2. Include a small testcase that did not work before, preferably using
standard tools, but does work now.  Include your expected results, and
actual results.
3. Include a patch to fix that one bug.  This is related to part one, it
is easier to review one fix at a time for correctness, etc. rather than
having a large segment of code to look at before deciding whether to
accept or reject the patch.

Thanks,
Charles

_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list
unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs