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

[Thomas Huth]

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")?

 Thomas