On 09/10/2025 10:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025, 10:09 Richard Earnshaw, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 08/10/2025 17:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 17:43, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> The gcc-TEST repository in the forge > (https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST > <https://forge.sourceware.org/gcc/gcc-TEST>) already has a few labels that > were manually created in order to support those participating in the > experiment. At present these have to be added manually to each pull request. > >> > >> But there's an opportunity to do much better than that and to > automatically assign a number of labels based on the components that a patch > touches. > >> > >> The attached file is my initial stab (technically it's my second, but > I posted that only to the forge mailing list and in reply to another message, > so it has probably been lost by now) at such a taxonomy of labels. Once I > have a largely finalized list, I expect to use the REST API in the forge to > bulk create the labels. > >> > >> My ultimate goal is that we would be able to map patches to components > (most likely determined via a script that mapped affected files to > components) and then components to mailing lists and reviewers, so that they > would be notified of new pull requests being submitted. This initial mapping > should be automated with a runner in the forge, but labels can then be > manually changed by reviewers. > >> > >> I'm looking for feedback on this list since it's much easier to add > labels in bulk than it is to change labels once they start being applied to > pulls. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > Nice. Should there be something for docs? > > > > These mostly seem like they could be classified as Build/xxx rather > > than General/xxx: > > > > General/config Affects configure or autoconf scripts > > General/make Affects Makefiles or automake > > General/unknown Catch-all, does not match any other category > > General/gdbhooks Support for debugging GCC with GDB (gdbhooks.py) > > > > But maybe it makes sense to have a more ... general ... grouping than > Build. > > > Would Misc be better for all of these? I think docs would fit under > that; but do we need Docs/* for the different components in the tools? > > > > Lots of separate Docs labels seems like overkill to me. > > Misc would be OK but I also think General also works for the miscellaneous > stuff. I wasn't objecting to General, just musing. >
Musing is fine. I want to get this as right as possible, which is why this is an RFD. There's a danger of bike shedding, but as long as we reach a reasonable consensus, that's ok too. R.
