| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally |
| 5 |
>> long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's |
| 6 |
>> perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but |
| 7 |
>> "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. |
| 10 |
> We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Can we please keep these identifiers short? Currently all ARCH names are |
| 13 |
5 characters at most (except prefix, of course). The total length of the |
| 14 |
KEYWORDS line isn't the main issue here, but tools like eshowkw or |
| 15 |
tables in the various web interfaces. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It is also in GLEP 53 if you need a formal reference: |
| 18 |
"Note that no limit on the length of both fields in the keyword are |
| 19 |
imposed. However, we cannot overemphasize our preference to keep |
| 20 |
keywords small and sensible." |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ulrich |
Archives