At the same time, if someone is doing some kinda funky thing that they want to add on, you shouldnt pre-dispose people to that code as well IMO.
This is especially for code that changes how configurations are done or anything non-modular. Say, someone wants to add some power modeling code. That code would probably be a set of functions in all of the cpu models.What if people say the code should be done a different way or interfaced a different way. At that point, you have code that works in the tree but not everyone agrees on the interface it should works. I'm not the expert on how this stuff works but I could see the benefit to a "stable" version of things and a "developmental" version. Or maybe, whatever release is the most recent is considered "stable".... On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:30 AM, nathan binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> are all the patches supposed to be committed now in some order or doAt th >> you want everything working "as is"? > You should be doing all of your work in mercurial queues. All you'll > need to do is get everything into a patch, copy .hg/patches to the new > repo's .hg directory, and delete .hg/patches/status. You can then > start doing your queue commands again. > >> what's the process for editing code later? I'm assuming stable tree >> and developmental tree? Rules for checking in/out of both? > There should be just one "m5" tree. People can feel free to have > their own development trees, and we can create something akin to the > mercurial crew if we like. In general, you shouldn't be committing > stuff to the main tree that isn't tested anyway. > > Nate > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > -- ---------- Korey L Sewell Graduate Student - PhD Candidate Computer Science & Engineering University of Michigan _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
