We discussed this in the TVM Community Meeting this morning. Here are notes (thanks @csullivan for taking these):
- Main goal: Automate assigning labels to issues
- Propose to do this via the tvm-bot
- Parse the body of an issue into potential labels
- Want to encourage more longitudinal tracking
- One of the ways currently established is the CI monitoring rotation schedule
- With a dedicated monitor we end up with a list of flaky test issues
- Want to make it possible for either the issue to be self triaged or
- One option: Issue templates- downside was there were a lot of templates given the many components in TVM
- Proposed option: Bug report template, with additional tags that the automated bot can discover and apply the correct labeling
- No way currently to triage a PR and assign labels without committer status. By encouraging users to state the issue in terms of specific labels, the tvm bot can auto assign labels (triage) and cc relevant parties.
- Another motivation: If you contribute code to TVM, there is a quick way to know who to attend
- New labels!
- Label group: BYOC (bring your own codegen)
- Label group: backend: cover codegen and runtime of those backends
- Label group: core, for core components of TVM that cut across runtime and compiler
- Label group: dev, things that impact developer experience
- Label group: flow, different compilation flows in TVM (relay, TIR, executors)
- Frontend : importers
- Relay : different sections of relay
- Runtime
- Topi : op implementations and scheedules
- TIR
- Tuning: the various tuning technologies
- Vert: (verticals), issues facing a specific hardware targets end to end support
- Deprecating labels:
- Status, type, priority
- Matthew Barret: Do we want to formalize the notion of calling things BYOC?
- The difference between these we are calling byoc are that they are essentially Relay backends, whereas everything under “backend” is a TIR backend.
- We currently map BYOC:relay backend, backend:TIR backend, is that the right distinction to formalize in the use of labels.
- Gustavo Romero:
- Wondering about the relation between the labels and the tags to be added to a title
- Andrew: Current proposal (debatable) is to add a triage section at the end of the issue with the necessary labels,
- Right now the title tags are user defined convention, with the new labels is one concern is the extra typing overhead. Main reason to propose additional labels that are prefilled in triage section is so that the user can just click and remove or add and not require more typing
- How should we thread this through all the way to the PR commit message guidelines. Requires some thought.
- Gustavo: Not apparently clashing, but having a set of tags to be used is part of the PR commit guidelines, and so having uniformity with triage issues. Multiple PRs may result from an issue so it doesn’t need to be a one-to-one map, but a uniform tagging/labeling system can provide helpful hints to where the PR derived from, especially if tags don’t immediately match with issue labels.