On Mon, Jun 14 2021, John Snow <js...@redhat.com> 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.
