On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:06:40PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > > > On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code > >>>>> (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in > >>>>> the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it > >>>>> feasible to require for the next release that each new device/machine > >>>>> is provided a test covering it? > >>>>> > >>>>> If no, what is missing? > >>>> > >>>> If a qtest is feasible, yes, I think we should require one for new > >>>> devices. But what about machines - you normally need a test image for > >>>> this. In that case, there is still the question where testing images > >>>> could be hosted. Not every developer has a web space where they could > >>>> put their test images onto. And what about images that contain non-free > >>>> code? > >>> > >>> Yep, it isn't feasible to make this a hard rule. > >>> > >>> IMHO this is where a support tier classification comes into play > >>> > >>> - Tier 1: actively maintained, qtest coverage available. Expected > >>> to work reliably at all times since every commit is CI > >>> tested > >>> > >>> - Tier 2: actively maintained, no qtest coverage. Should usually > >>> work but regression may creep in due to reliance on the > >>> maintainer to manually test on adhoc basis > >>> > >>> - Tier 3: not actively maintained, unknown state but liable to > >>> be broken indefinitely > >>> > >>> Tier 1 is obviously the most desirable state we would like everthing to > >>> be at. Contributors will have to fix problems their patches cause as > >>> they will be blocked by CI. > >>> > >>> Tier 2 is an admission that reality gets in the way. Ideally stuff in > >>> this tier will graduate to Tier 1 at some point. Even if it doesn't > >>> though, it is still valid to keep it in QEMU long term. Contributors > >>> shouldn't gratuitously break stuff in these board, but if they do, > >>> then the maintainer is ultimately responsible for fixing it, as the > >>> contributors don't have a test rig for it. > >>> > >>> Tier 3 is abandonware. If a maintainer doesn't appear, users should > >>> not expect it to continue to exist long term. Contributors are free > >>> to send patches which break this, and are under no obligation to > >>> fix problems in these boards. We may deprecate & delete it after a > >>> while > >>> > >>> > >>> Over time we'll likely add more criteria to stuff in Tier 1. This > >>> could lead to some things dropping from Tier 1 to Tier 2. This is > >>> OK, as it doesn't make those things worse than they already were. > >>> We're just saying that Tier 2 isn't as thoroughly tested as we > >>> would like it to be in an ideal world. > >> > >> I really like the idea of device support tiers codified directly in the > >> QEMU codebase, to give upstream users some idea of which devices we > >> expect to work and which we ... don't, really. > >> > >> Not every last device we offer is enterprise production ready, but we > >> don't necessarily do a good job of explaining which devices fall into > >> which categories, and we've got quite a few of them. > >> > >> I wonder if a 2.5th tier would be useful; something like a "hobbyist" > >> tier for pet project SoC boards and the like -- they're not abandoned, > >> but we also don't expect them to work, exactly. > >> > >> Mild semantic difference from Tier 3. > > > > I guess I was thinking such hobbyist stuff would fall into tier 2 if the > > hobbyist maintainer actually responds to fixing stuff, or tier 3 if they > > largely aren't active on the mailing list responding to issues/questions. > > > > We add have a 4 tier system overall and put hobbyist stuff at tier 3, > > and abandonware at tier 4. > > > > Probably shouldn't go beyond 4 tiers though, as the more criteria we add > > the harder it is to clearly decide which tier something should go into. > > > > The tier 1 vs 2 divison is clearly split based on CI which is a simple > > classification to decide on. > > > > The tier 2 vs 3 division is moderately clearly split based on whether > > there is a frequently active maintainer. > > > > We can probably squeeze in the 4th tier without too much ambiguity in > > the classisfication if we think it is adding something worthwhile either > > from our POV as maintainers, or for users consuming it. > > Yes, I didn't mean to start watering it down into a 1,380 tier system > that we're never able to properly utilize. > > I was thinking more along the lines of: > > - Device works and is well loved > - Device works and is well loved (but we have to test manually) > - Device doesn't work, but is well loved > (Use at your own peril, please file a bug report) > - Device doesn't work, and is unloved > > Perhaps it'd be clearer to name these Tier 1A, 1B, 2, and 3; where > things can shift from 1A to 1B as their test coverage allows, but it's > not meant to indicate general status otherwise.
Yeah 1A/1B would be fairly effective. > Mostly, I would just like some way for users to avoid accidentally > running tier 2 or 3 devices /by accident/, or the ability to compile > QEMU versions that only allow tier 1 devices to be used. > > It's all arbitrary -- but I think we agree more than not! I'd love to > have a list of first-class boards and devices that we promise to test > and have working. Yes, I think we're basically in agreement on the both the goal and way to achieve it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
