yoshuawuyts · Oct 23, 2026 · Oct 23, 2026 · Oct 23, 2026 · Oct 23, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+# HIP 0005 - Structured labels
+
+## Elevator pitch
+
+We propose a standard labeling scheme for issues and PRs on GitHub, largely
+modeled after Rust’s labeling system. This will make it easier to plan meetings,
+raise items for discussion, as well as make it easier to switch between
+repositories.
+
+## Status quo
+
+Hyperlight currently uses different labeling schemes across projects. Despite
+our best efforts, even the main Hyperlight project contains duplicate labels and
+labels that don’t follow its primary labeling scheme. Although Hyperlight does
+not use a monorepo, we still plan and coordinate development across all
+repositories. Without a shared labeling vocabulary, it’s harder to coordinate
+processes like triage and issue nomination.
+
+Currently the main Hyperlight project uses the following labels prefixes:
+
+- `area/`
+- `kind/`
+- `lifecycle/`
+- `size/`
+
+In addition to these, there are 10 labels that don’t follow a framework, as well
+as three pairs of seemingly duplicate labels.
+
+## What we propose to do about it
+
+I’m proposing three changes to issue labels:
+
+- All labels must fit within a structured labeling framework
+- All repositories must follow this framework
+- All labels should start with single-letter prefixes
+
+Under the proposed scheme, `lifecycle/blocked-on-author` would be renamed to
+`S-waiting-on-author` (“status: waiting on author”). For a full overview of all
+labels and their proposed names, see the section on implementation details.
+
+## Shiny future
+
+One of the most impressive things about how the Rust language team is run is its
+ability to prioritize work and get back to people quickly. We want Hyperlight to
+be used more, which means the project needs to be trusted—and that people need
+to trust us and our processes. The Rust language team used to have a problem
+with responsiveness, but it turned that around by improving its processes. For
+at least the past year, it feels like nothing pressing has gotten stuck in
+limbo.
+
+That’s not to say Hyperlight is doing poorly, but we could do better. In
+particular, it would be nice if creating triage agendas and prioritizing work
+items were easier. That requires organizing the existing work more effectively.
+Since we do not have a monorepo, it also means creating consistency across
+repositories.
+
+I’d love it if generating the agenda for the weekly meetings were as simple as
+running a script to see which issues have been nominated, whether any items have
+been filed specifically for the agenda, and whether any items need attention.
+
+## Implementation details and plan
+
+### Categories
+
+- **`A-` — Area:** The part of the project affected.
+- **`C-` — Category:** The type of issue or change.
+- **`E-` — Participation:** Difficulty, experience required, or requests for help.
+- **`F-` — Feature:** A specific feature or initiative being tracked.
+- **`O-` — Platform:** CPU architecture, operating system, and hypervisor.
+- **`P-` — Priority:** Urgency or release importance.
+- **`S-` — Status:** Workflow state, resolution, or outstanding action.
+
+### Label conversion
+
+| Label                         | Proposed replacement       |
+| ----------------------------- | -------------------------- |
+| `area/API`                    | `A-api`                    |
+| `area/ci-periodics`           | `A-ci-periodics`           |
+| `area/ci-periodics-aarch64`   | `A-ci-periodics-aarch64`   |
+| `area/ci-periodics-mshv-6.18` | `A-ci-periodics-mshv-6.18` |
+| `area/ci-periodics-nightly`   | `A-ci-periodics-nightly`   |
+| `area/dependencies`           | `A-deps`                   |
+| `area/documentation`          | `A-docs`                   |
+| `area/fuzzing`                | `A-fuzzing`                |
+| `area/infrastructure`         | `A-infra`                  |
+| `area/performance`            | `A-perf`                   |
+| `area/security`               | `A-security`               |
+| `area/testing`                | `A-testing`                |
+| `github_actions`              | `A-ci`                     |
+| `good first issue`            | `E-easy`                   |
+| `Guest-COW`                   | `F-guest-cow`              |
+| `help-wanted`                 | `E-help-wanted`            |
+| `kind/bugfix`                 | `C-bug`                    |
+| `kind/dependencies`           | `C-deps`                   |
+| `kind/documentation`          | `C-docs`                   |
+| `kind/enhancement`            | `C-enhancement`            |
+| `kind/refactor`               | `C-refactor`               |
+| `lifecycle/blocked`           | `S-blocked`                |
+| `lifecycle/blocked-on-author` | `S-waiting-on-author`      |
+| `lifecycle/confirmed`         | `S-confirmed`              |
+| `lifecycle/duplicate`         | (1)                        |
+| `lifecycle/fixed`             | (2)                        |
+| `lifecycle/needs-review`      | `S-needs-triage`           |
+| `lifecycle/not-a-bug`         | (3)                        |
+| `lifecycle/wont-fix`          | (1)                        |
+| `question`                    | `C-question`               |
+| `ready-for-review`            | `S-waiting-on-review`      |
+| `regen-goldens`               | `S-needs-golden-regen`     |
+| `release-blocker`             | `P-release-blocker`        |
+| `size/l`                      | `E-hard`                   |
+| `size/m`                      | `E-medium`                 |
+| `size/s`                      | `E-easy`                   |
+| `size/xl`                     | `E-hard`                   |
+| `size/xs`                     | `E-easy`                   |
+
+1. Link issue and close as "not planned"
+2. Close the issue as "completed"
+3. Explain the finding and close as "not planned"
+
+### New labels
+
+| Proposed label  | Description                                  |
+| --------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
+| `O-x86_64`      | Specific to x86-64 processors                |
+| `O-aarch64`     | Specific to 64-bit Arm processors            |
+| `O-kvm`         | Linux KVM backend                            |
+| `O-mshv`        | Linux MSHV backend for Microsoft Hyper-V     |
+| `O-whp`         | Windows Hypervisor Platform backend          |
+| `O-hvf`         | macOS Hypervisor Framework backend           |
+| `O-linux`       | Linux host support                           |
+| `O-windows`     | Windows host support                         |
+| `O-macos`       | macOS host support                           |
+| `S-to-announce` | To announce in the next release              |
+| `S-needs-repro` | Needs a repro to confirm the bug             |
+| `S-nominated`   | Nominated for discussion in the next meeting |
+
+### Rollout
+
+Inventory label producers and consumers across repositories before renaming labels.
+Coordinate updates to release-blocker queries, PR label checks, golden-regeneration
+checks, and CI issue creation with the label migration. Keep these paths working
+throughout the transition, using temporary support for both names where needed.
+Retire old names only after all producers and consumers use the proposed names.
+
+## Frequently asked questions
+
+### Why use single-letter prefixes?
+
+I think this is a bit of a [Stroustrup’s
+rule](https://buttondown.com/hillelwayne/archive/stroustrups-rule/): new
+features want loud, explicit notation - established features want a terse
+notation. A labeling system is not a programming language, but it’s still a
+system we interact with. Short, terse labels are nice when we use something a
+lot - and I plan for us to use this a lot.
+
+### Can an issue have multiple labels?
+
+Yes! In fact, they almost always should! For example, a bug about MSHV support
+on Linux should be tagged `O-mshv`, `O-linux`, `C-bug`, and
+`S-needs-triage`.
+
+### This seems complicated, do we really need it?
+
+There are two kinds of systems: ones which we design, and once which are accrue
+over time. Most of what we’re proposing in this HIP is an iteration on things
+we’re already tracking, very little is completely new. All this HIP really does
+is spell out the system in whole.
+
+### Can we automate parts of this?
+
+In the Rust project, Rustbot automatically tags issues with
+`S-waiting-on-review` and `S-waiting-on-author` depending on who has last
+responded. This makes it easier to e.g. scan for items which are blocked on us
+and we should get back to.
+
+There is also the `S-needs-triage` label we’re proposing, which could be
+automatically added whenever a new item is created. This would be easy to pick
+up for agendas to discuss as part of triage.
+
+### Why is “participation” labeled with “E-”
+
+“Priority” is labeled “P-”, meaning participation needs a different prefix. Rust
+uses “E-” for this, which seems as good as any other choice.
+
+### Why rename "lifecycle" to "status"
+
+The term "lifecycle" implies that it can only represent one state at any given
+time, e.g. *"Which state in the lifecycle are we on?"*. The term "status" does
+not imply that same restriction, and any item can have one or more status
+modifiers at any given time.
+
+This is nice, because it allows us to tag an item as `S-waiting-on-review`,
+while also being `S-nominated` for the next community meeting. In comparison:
+"nominated for the next meeting" does not feel like it would naturally be part
+of any "lifecycle".