On 22 June 2018 at 15:38, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So if everyone has adopted we can certainly follow our deprecation policy. > Now if deprecation breaks some real world cases it makes no sense to > "insist" on that deprecation policy. Really: If latest greatest libvirt > does not work 2 weeks before soft freeze I consider this too late. > > Why: This breaks MY regression test setup before softfreeze. So I will stop > testing qemu in the most critical point in time. > > If you would come up with your statement (taking deprecation policy more > serious than users) in the Linux kernel I can pretty much guarantee that > Linus would call you names. This is one of those areas where I like to think the QEMU community is a more pleasant place to be than the kernel :-) The fact we have a deprecation policy at all indicates that we are (unlike the kernel) sometimes willing to break things that previously worked for users; but I think we should be a bit pragmatic as well. If one of our largest use cases (libvirt) missed the memo on this one I don't think we do anybody any favours by sticking to the letter of the rules. thanks -- PMM -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
