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
