On 14/12/20 6:20 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 14/12/2020 07:31, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >> On 11/12/2020 17:43, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >>> If renaming them introduces challenges, then we should explicitly >>> use -0 for the first requirement always, and not allow unnumbered >>> ones to exist. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I would be concerned that the unnumbered ones would be following a >>> different naming pattern which would make the requirements file matching >>> pattern harder. >> We should not make things more complicated than necessary. The goal is to >> have >> descriptive names for the requirements. If a numbering makes sense, then it >> should start with zero. If you need more than 10 numbers, then using 00 is >> also acceptable, for example: /rtems/event/if/event-00. > > It seems the *-0 scheme was already used by Frank to specify the basedefs: > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/tree/spec/rtems/basedefs/req > > For example > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/tree/spec/rtems/basedefs/req/packed-0.yml > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/tree/spec/rtems/basedefs/req/packed-1.yml > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/tree/spec/rtems/basedefs/req/packed-2.yml > > I would have probably used no numbers and instead something like > > packed-member > > packed-type > > packed-enum
Agreed. Is it too late to change? > I don't care much which style we use in the end, but it should be consistent > across the specification. So, it is good to have this discussion and it is > evident what the current I agree. It is hard to move, remove and rename. It is easy to add. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
