On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 09:56:31PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15/01/2026 19.01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Informally we have approximately three groups of platforms > > > > * Tier 1: fully built and fully tested by CI. Must always be > > kept working & regressions fixed immediately > > > > * Tier 2: fully built and partially tested by CI. Should > > always be kept working & regressions fixed quickly > > > > * Tier 3: code exists but is not built or tested by CI. > > Should not be intentionally broken but not > > guaranteed to work at any time. Downstream must > > manually test, report & fix bugs. > > > > Anything else is "unclassified" and any historical code > > remnants may be removed. > > > > It is somewhat tricky to define unambiguous rules for each tier, > > but this doc takes a stab at it. We don't need to cover every > > eventuality. If we get the core points of view across, then it > > at least sets the direction for maintainers/contributors/users. > > Other aspects can be inferred with greater accuracy than today. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > --- > ... > > + > > +Tier 2 > > +~~~~~~ > > + > > +These platforms are considered to be near Tier 1 level, but are > > +lacking sufficient automated CI testing cover to guarantee this. > > + > > + * Builds and all tests pass at all times in both git HEAD and releases > > + > > + * Builds for multiple build configuration are integrated in CI > > + > > + * Runs some test frameworks in CI > > I don't think that we run any test frameworks for Linux on mips64el or > riscv64 in the CI, do we? It's only cross-compilation of the code.
I didn't want to put those in tier 3 since I think they're generally better than that. Perhaps this bullet should be loosened slightly "May run some tests frameworks in CI" > > ... > > + > > +Tier 3 > > +~~~~~~ > > + > > +These platforms have theoretical support in the code, but have > > +little, or no, automated build and test coverage. Downstream > > +consumers (users or distributors) who care about these platforms > > +are requested to perform manual testing, report bugs and provide > > +patches. > > + > > + * Builds and tests may be broken at any time in Git HEAD and > > + releases > > + > > + * Builds are not integrated into CI > > + > > + * Tests are not integrated into CI > > + > > + * Merging code is not gated > > + > > +This covers: > > + > > + * NetBSD > > + * OpenBSD > > + * macOS (except aarch64) > > + * FreeBSD (except x86_64) > > + * Windows (except x86_64) > > + * Solaris > > You missed Haiku. Opps, I knew I'd miss something :-) > > + > > +Unclassified > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +These platforms are not intended to be supported in the code > > +and outside the scope of any support tiers. > > + > > + * Code supporting these platforms can removed at any time > > + * Bugs reports related to these platforms will generally > > + be ignored > > + > > +This covers: > > + > > + * All 32-bit architectures on any OS > > Support for 32-bit OSes is currently being removed. Yep, this doc is slightly anticipating the future. I was expecting that Richard's series: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2026-01/msg03073.html will be merged soon enough. > > + * Any OS not listed above > > Is it possible at all to compile QEMU for any other OS? I though our > configure script would block such attempts...? Hmm, true, we should be blocking atttempts to build. So anycode related to unclassified OS would be non-buildable and definitely OK to remove. With 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 :|
