From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DA5C48BE8 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939046141E for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:30:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 939046141E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:40706 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lt3WK-0002uA-7n for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:30:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60498) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lt3VN-0001Yu-DN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:29:01 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:54743) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lt3VJ-0001Ed-Ph for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:28:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1623742136; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mdiwAU2JAfZjSaDBh+GJL4FE8HT5szC21Ux1lmirwto=; b=RVRBfkFkMbSSeG5XwFHWxt6rXe6PZPpBepbCpqoTbANbwUMjd1PlJ9xoJga+D1hTFGHuZC JOOV3abReFAf0skJbgvlJ1ReaUAfkkCwO3txyrmr4C6lHsnBPRfD8V8KeZvkV8l4AIO5DK MAlo/HytC/IcoUArP4WZ1gr067AlKeI= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-123-xLewwAJeMlu5jRHRb2yOeA-1; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:28:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xLewwAJeMlu5jRHRb2yOeA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47F5F9F939; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:28:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-113-156.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960825D9DC; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:28:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: John Snow , QEMU Developers Subject: Re: [RFC] GitLab issue tracker labeling process: arch/target, os, and accel labels In-Reply-To: <0a19af15-2f34-4934-c6c9-113e49f5f1f2@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH References: <0a19af15-2f34-4934-c6c9-113e49f5f1f2@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.32.1 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:28:45 +0200 Message-ID: <87k0mvy4b6.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , David Hildenbrand , Bin Meng , Mark Cave-Ayland , Max Filippov , Taylor Simpson , Alistair Francis , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Marek Vasut , Yoshinori Sato , Kamil Rytarowski , Reinoud Zandijk , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Artyom Tarasenko , Thomas Huth , Eduardo Habkost , Stefan Weil , Richard Henderson , Greg Kurz , Michael Rolnik , Stafford Horne , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , David Gibson , =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_P=2E_Berrang=C3=A9?= , Bastian Koppelmann , Chris Wulff , Laurent Vivier , Palmer Dabbelt , Paolo Bonzini Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Jun 14 2021, John Snow wrote: (...) > # OS > > Currently "os: XXX" for BSD, Linux, Windows, and macOS. > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/labels?subscribed=&search=os%3A > > Multiple OS labels can be applied to an issue. > > Originally, we kept this label somewhat vague and have been using it to > identify both the host AND guest involved with an issue. > > Stefan Weil has requested that we refactor this to separate the concerns > so that he can identify issues where Windows is the host without wading > through numerous reports where Windows is merely the guest. Reasonable > request. > > Shall we split it into "host: XXX" and "guest: XXX" for {BSD, Linux, > Windows, macOS}? Yes to splitting and using something like "hostOS:" and "guestOS:", as had already been suggested downthread. For the guest OS, I think we also want "Other". It can be valuable to know that the guest OS might be doing something that is not done by the OSes usually run as a guest, so I think this is useful information. What about linux-user? We probably can't categorize what is being run very neatly. > > This isn't too hard to do at initial triage time, but we'll need to sift > through the bugs we've labeled so far and re-label them. Help on this > would be appreciated. I would prefer we create a *new* set of labels and > then draw down on the old labels instead of just renaming them. That > way, the old label can be used as a re-triage queue. > > > # arch/target > > Currently "target: XXX" for alpha, arm, avr, cris, hexagon, hppa, i386, > m68k, microblaze, mips, nios2, openrisc, ppc, riscv, rx, s390x, sh4, > sparc, tricore, xtensa. > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/labels?subscribed=&search=target%3A > > The names map 1:1 to the directories in target/. > The names in [square brackets] in the label descriptions correspond 1:1 > with the SysEmuTarget QAPI enum defined in qapi/machine.json. > > Multiple target labels can be applied to an issue. Originally, this was > named "arch", so this was to allow multiple architectures to be > specified to cover the host/guest environment. If we disentangle this, > we may still want to allow multiple labels to cover bugs that might > affect multiple targets, though that case might be rare. > > Recently, we renamed this from "arch: XXX" to "target: XXX", though the > label had been being used for both the host and guest architecture, so > this will need to be re-audited to remove cases where the label had been > applied for the host architecture. > > We probably want to keep a set of labels that apply to the host > architecture. These are useful for build failures, environment setup > issues, or just documenting the exact environment on which an issue was > observed. > > We won't likely require the full set of targets to be duplicated for > this purpose: possibly just the most common ones. I assume those are: > > arm, i386, ppc, s390x > > How should we tag those? "host-arch: XXX"? host-arch sounds good; maybe add a catch-all "host-arch: other" to catch uncommon host architectures? > > What I would like to avoid is creating labels like "host: windows-i386" > where the cross matrix of ({host,guest} X OS x ARCH) starts to require > ever-increasing specificity of initial triage labels and may increase > the risk of overly-specified bugs going unnoticed. Maybe my concern is > unfounded, but I think the over-specificity will hurt more than help at > this stage. I think having "host-arch:" and "hostOS:" is enough.