Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 07.11.2019 21:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: [...] >> Pre-release period, time to deprecate some stuffs :) >> >> How should we proceed? Do you have something in mind? >> >> There are older threads about this. Should we start a new thread? Gather the different ideas on the Wiki? >> >> (Obviously you are not the one responsible of this topic, you just happen to be the last one worried about it on the list). >> >> Regards, >> >> Phil. 4.2.0-rc0 has been tagged, i.e. we're in hard freeze already. Only bug fixes are accepted during hard freeze. We've occasionally bent this rule after -rc0 for borderline cases, e.g. to tweak a new external interface before the release calcifies it. Making a case for bending the rules becomes harder with each -rc. Ideally, we'd double-check new interfaces for gaffes before a release, and whether old interfaces that have been replaced now should be deprecated. There's rarely time for that, and pretty much never for releases right after KVM Forum. So no, I don't have anything in mind for 4.2. We intend to tag -rc1 next Tuesday. To make that deadline, we'd need patches, not just ideas. > Hi! > > I wanted to resend, but faced some problems, and understand that I can't do it in time before soft-freeze.. > But you say, that we can deprecate something even after hard-freeze? See above. > Ok, the problem that I faced, is that deprecation warnings breaks some iotests.. What can we do? > > 1. Update iotests... > 1.1 Just update iotests outputs to show warnings. Then, in next release cycle, update iotests, to not use deprecated things Sounds workable to me, but I'm not the maintainer. > or > 1.2 Update iotests to not use deprecated things.. Not appropriate for hard freeze. Unnecessarily risky compared to 1.1. > or > 2. Commit deprecations without warnings.. But how do people find out about this? Not nice. We do it for QMP, but only because we still lack the means to warn there. > Next, what exactly to deprecate? As I understand, we can't deprecate drive-mirror now? > So I propose to: > > 1. deprecate drive-backup > 2. add optional filter-node-name parameter to drive-mirror, to correspond to commit and mirror > 3. deprecate that filter-node-name is optional for commit and mirror. To have a chance there, we need patches a.s.a.p. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
