From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Blog: "BTRFS is effectively stable"
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:02:16 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNc_jEK+avcQjhyW2+6eoTBaeQFKXJAAdyNbiP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201010301038.28038.chris@csamuel.org> <AANLkTikRA_ZsXUJ6e_qYTuE0nzvV=YDrbqXs-Pjmqy0d@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikRA_ZsXUJ6e_qYTuE0nzvV=YDrbqXs-Pjmqy0d@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

> For example:
> =A0No device-yanking tests were done.
> =A0No power-cord yanking tests were done.
> =A0No device cables were yanked, shaken, or plugged/unplugged in rapi=
d
> succession.
> =A0No "dd the raw device underneath the filesystem while doing file
> I/O" tests were done.
> =A0No recovery tests were done.
>

Any reallife tests to show how close we are to becoming really stable
? i.e ideally I'd like to know that we're for example 85% stable
failing N tests
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html