On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:58:05 +0200 Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.07.2018 13:11, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 17:14:02 +0100 > > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 4 July 2018 at 14:34, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Essentially, what is important to me isn't getting these options dropped > >>> exactly in 3.0, but not setting a bad precedence that deprecation isn't > >>> actually worth anything. We may easily end up with this deprecation > >>> process: > >>> > >>> depreate a feature > >>> release QEMU version n + 1 > >>> release QEMU version n + 2 > >>> remove the feature > >>> while libvirt hasn't removed use of the feature: > >>> # ...and why should it when everything is still working? > >>> reinstate the feature > >>> release QEMU version n + x > >>> remove the feature > >> > >> My take on the deprecation policy essentially is that it gives > >> us a *minimum* bar for how soon we can drop something. We > >> shouldn't be using it as an "always target this speed for > >> dropping something" -- we ought to be pragmatic. We can > >> drop stuff that's unused quickly, but should be slower > >> for things that still have major users (or reconsider > >> the deprecation entirely, potentially). There should be > >> a balance between making our work as developers easier and > >> inconveniencing our users. > > > > What about the following? > > > > - put a feature on the "normal" deprecation list to remove after two > > releases > > Case (a): nobody complains, either within the deprecation period or > > when it is finally removed > > -> all is good > > Case (b): the feature turns out to be widely used, and/or it turns out > > that it offers value that currently can't be offered easily in another > > way > > -> remove from deprecation list; this obviously needs more thinking > > Case (c): the feature is used, the users are willing to move away from > > it, but they need a bit more time > > -> put it on a "deprecation watchlist", listing the users we are > > waiting for, and then remove after all are done (no +2) > > That sounds like another indication that we should have a list of > "legacy" options in our qemu-doc, i.e. a list of interfaces that we > consider as old and unwanted, but do not intend to remove in 2 releases > yet. That idea has recently also come up already when we discussed the > "-enable-kvm" and "-no-kvm" options. The remainders "-usbdevice" is also > another good candidate for that list... Agree. It also might be a good idea to poke e.g. libvirt about those. Related: Are there other widely-used management etc. programs that make use of QEMU? (For some value of 'widely'.) We might consider poking them as well. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
