On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 05:47:00PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12.07.2018 08:32, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > [...] > >> 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? > > Sound like a good idea to put the appendix in its own texi file. Then > add an "R: libvir-list" entry for that file to MAINTAINERS and we should > be fine (at least for the people who use the get_maintainers.pl script). That's a neat idea and gets my vote. 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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
