On 4/17/19 10:56 AM, Cole Robinson wrote: > > So broadly I think the options are > > - Flip the switch. Double error reporting until we remove now redundant > calls. Worse error reporting in some cases like tristate and > virstoragetype without special consideration. No or less issues with > having half converted codebase. IMO Easier to patch out the redundant > calls and easier to review the removals because we can do it per file > rather than per enum usage which might be spread across multiple files. > > - Do it incrementally: will force us to consider each case individually > resulting in better overall error reporting. Until codebase is > converted, possible dev confusion and risk of new code neglecting to > raise an error. IMO the total dev and reviewer time is likely to be > significantly higher > > I definitely favor 'flip the switch' mostly because I think it will get > this done the quickest, and once it's in git it distributes the load of > working out the kinks to the whole dev team. Depending on uptake the > incremental approach might never get finished, it's not clear. But > beyond that I'm not tied to any specific naming or method so I'm open to > ideas. > > If consensus is to go for the incremental approach then I will support that I can live with 'flip the switch'. I know my incremental backup patches will have to rebase to the new style, but that's true for either style (and more a question of whether we can detect unconverted code via compilation failure or syntax-check once the bulk of the code base is converted). -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
