Name changes in pna.p4 #101
Conversation
|
Hi @mariobaldi, this is the ONF bot 🤖 I'm glad you want to contribute to our projects! However, before accepting your contribution, we need to ask you to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). You can do it online, it will take only a few minutes: ✒️ 👉 https://cla.opennetworking.org After signing, make sure to add your Github user ID For more information or help:" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to rationalise the names. Perhaps a single commit changing the names in both the P4 and MDK files would be cleaner, but assuming that both this and #100 get approved around the same time the result will be the same.
This change does make all the examples inconsistent, so I think a mass rename might be in order?
|
I agree that this should go with PR #99, but I thought of keeping them separate in case we agree with changing the architecture (i.e., approve PR #99 and possibly PR#100), but don’t agree with changing the naming convention.
…---
Mario
From: Thomas Calvert ***@***.***>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 12:41 PM
To: p4lang/pna ***@***.***>
Cc: Mario Baldi ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [p4lang/pna] Name changes in pna.p4 (PR #101)
@thomascalvert-xlnx commented on this pull request.
Makes sense to rationalise the names. Perhaps a single commit changing the names in both the P4 and MDK files would be cleaner, but assuming that both this and #100 <#100> get approved around the same time the result will be the same.
This change does make all the examples inconsistent, so I think a mass rename might be in order?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#101 (review)> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AICNJE62EXMAGTHNH3YJW4LWM4FNJANCNFSM6AAAAAAS24LHQE> .
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Obsolete as we decided not to change the names of the parser, deparser and control blocks |
Names changed in pna.p4 to reflect the removal of pre-control.