08.11.2019 9:41, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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. > OK, I'll send today and we'll see, what to do with it. -- Best regards, Vladimir -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
