Agreed, there are enough things that we're pedantic about; while I support the general idea, I wouldn't want this to turn into another opportunity for pedantry.
What I use the keywords for is on the review end, helping me decide whether or not I should try and review a particular patch. (Or more often, how guilty I should feel about not getting around to reviewing it...) Steve On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh, neither was I. My whole belief is that the keywords are so that > developers can quickly pick out "interesting" changesets. I'd see no > reason to say "cpu: o3:" when simply "o3:" will do. Similarly, why > have "kvm: arch:" when "kvm:" will do? If a subsystem gets big, then > it should be subdivided and the leaf keyword should be used. I guess > I could see "kvm arm:" or something like that if kvm gets broad enough > that the arm developers and the x86 developers don't care enough about > what they're each doing. > > I always thought of this as ad hoc and IMHO it should be. > > Nate > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Steve Reinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wasn't even aware we had an official list of keywords... but this plan > > sounds fine to me. That said, I personally would think that it's much > more > > reliable to find o3-related changes by doing 'hg log src/cpu/o3' than by > > trusting that appropriate keywords were used in the commit message. > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Hansson < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Assuming everyone is happy with this I'd suggest to expand the list on > the > >> wiki and create a heading with keywords (and their corresponding > >> sub-keywords) and then start populating it. > >> > >> Andreas > >> > >> > >> On 26/06/2013 10:06, "Andreas Sandberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >On 06/24/2013 02:49 PM, Andreas Hansson wrote: > >> >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> >> I'm keen to know what people think about the use of summary keywords > in > >> >>the commit messages. I noticed that Nilay uses two keywords, one from > >> >>http://gem5.org/Commit_Access and then one additional (more specific) > >> >>keyword. Pros/cons? Is it suggesting a need for more keywords? > >> > > >> >I'm in favour of using multiple keywords. I've generally used the > format > >> >"kvm: arch: summary" for my KVM-related patches and I think this might > >> >be a good idea in general. For example, the O3 CPU is a pretty large > >> >subsystem, so that should to warrant its own sub-keyword ("cpu: o3: > ..."). > >> > > >> >However, we should probably try to "standardize" the keywords we use to > >> >make it easier to search for relevant changes in the revision history. > >> > > >> >//Andreas > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >gem5-dev mailing list > >> >[email protected] > >> >http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > >> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > >> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > >> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > the > >> information in any medium. Thank you. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gem5-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
