Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.m.m...@gmail.com> writes: > On May 29, 2019 5:09 PM, "Markus Armbruster" <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> When scripts/get_maintainer.pl reports something like >> >> John Doe <j...@example.org> (maintainer:Overall) >> >> the user is left to wonder *which* of our three "Overall" sections >> applies. We have three, one each under "Guest CPU cores (TCG)", >> "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)", and "Overall usermode emulation". >> >> Rename sections under >> >> * "Guest CPU cores (TCG)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (TCG)" >> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (KVM)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (KVM)" >> >> * "Guest CPU Cores (Xen)" from "FOO" to "FOO CPU cores (Xen)" >> > > In its essence definitely not a bad idea, but I must admit I tend to agree > with Philippe the new titles sound confusing, odd, artificial. Perhaps the > better alternative could be: > > “FOO TCG guest” > “FOO KVM guest” > “FOO Xen guest”
Other suggestions mentioned so far: "FOO CPUs (TCG)" "TCG FOO CPUs" and same for KVM and Xen. I guess mentioning target first, accelerator second, no parenthesis makes sense. That leaves "guest" vs. "CPUs". Which one's closer to the truth? >> * "Architecture support" from "FOO" to "FOO general architecture >> support" >> > > Here we have a kind of strange situation with S390 architecture - it is the > only one present in this way in MAINTAINERS. Othrr than that, your new > wording looks fine to me. Yes, it's odd. But it's what works for the S390 maintainers. >> * "Tiny Code Generator (TCG)" from "FOO target" to "FOO TCG target" >> > > I think this one you got it right. Thanks!
