Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:08:38PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:33:05 +0200 >> Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > On 6 July 2018 at 15:56, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> Am 06.07.2018 um 13:11 hat Cornelia Huck geschrieben: >> > >>> That way, we can still easily remove old cruft (case (a)), but still >> > >>> accommodate cases like this (case (c)). The obvious drawback is that >> > >>> we'd need someone to curate the deprecation watchlist, to poke the >> > >>> users we're waiting for, and probably remove anyway after some time if >> > >>> they don't get their act together. >> > >> >> > >> The problem is that things are only starting to move after two releases >> > >> have passed. >> > > >> > > Right, so clearly just "put a note in the documentation" isn't >> > > sufficient advertisement/prodding of things going away. >> > >> > Yes. Ideas on more forceful notification have been tossed around, we >> > just have to act on them. >> > >> > > (Also, two >> > > releases is pretty fast. Many of our users will be using distro >> > > packaged versions of QEMU which will lag further behind than >> > > bleeding-edge users. The system version of QEMU on my desktop >> > > machine is 2.5...) >> > >> > If you consume QEMU in a way that's impacted by the changes the >> > deprecation policy guards, you have two sane options: >> > >> > * Track upstream deprecation, either continuously, or at least right >> > after a QEMU release. Since 2.10, they're collected in qemu-doc >> > appendix "Deprecated features". >> >> Can we draw more attention to this in any way? Point it out prominently >> in the release notes? Send a list to known consumers (e.g. libvirt) on >> release time? > > Yes, we should all newly deprecated stuff in the release notes. No-brainer. > For libvirt, I think whenever something is proposed for deprecation > we could just CC libvir-list, or ask one of the libvirt people to > confirm its not being used. If it is, then we should file BZ against > libvirt. Makes sense, but relying on developers getting their cc: right every time is a setting us up for failure. Our tool to help with getting cc: wrong less often is the MAINTAINERS file. Could one of the libvirt developers watch changes to qemu-doc appendix "Deprecated features"? Would putting the appendix in its own .texi help with that? -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
