Re: [RFC] GitLab issue tracker labeling process: arch/target, os, and accel labels

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 6/15/21 10:56 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14/06/2021 19.32, John Snow wrote:
> [...]
>> RTH raises the issue of the "TCI" subsystem of TCG, which is not a
>> full accelerator in its own right, but (I think) a special case of
>> TCG. If I keep the 1:1 mapping to ACCEL_CLASS_NAME, "accel: TCI" is
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> Some suggestions:
>> - "TCI" by itself, simple enough.
>> - "TCG-TCI" or "TCG: TCI" or "TCG/TCI" or similar, so that it shows up
>> in label search when you search for 'tcg'.
>> - "accel: TCG:TCI". Similar to above but uses the "accel:" prefix too.
> 
> I wonder whether we need a label for TCI at all... I can't recall having
> ever seen a bug ticket filed for TCI. It's quite a special use-case with
> some few users only, so it's maybe not worth the effort to create a
> separate label for this... just my 0.02 €.
> 
>> 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 fine to me. I think you can limit the selection here
> to the list of TCG backends that we support:
> 
>  arm, i386, mips, ppc, riscv, s390x, sparc
> 
> ... and maybe tci here (i.e. "host-arch: tci")?

Great idea!