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
