On 3/23/21 3:04 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 14:50:09 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 3/23/21 2:42 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:36:19PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 3/22/21 5:09 PM, Tim Wiederhake wrote:
virsh has several arguments that are better not used. This series introduces
a formal way of marking them as deprecated.
Commit messages are rather sparse. What we currently have is hiding options
we deem obsolete from users and replacing them with better ones (just :Ggrep
VSH_OT_ALIAS). No error message, no warning. What makes these you picked
special? I'm not against reporting that an option is obsolete, but I don't
quite understand why we need a different way for obsoleting those three.
Also the general idea of deprecation is that the thing will be deleted
eventually, which is not something we intended to do with these options.
Basically there's a better way to do these things, but we're not going
to break existing usage, so if users are happy with what they're doing
they don't need to change.
To be fair we never promised virsh to be stable, did we? We are trying to
I'd say we do, at least for the reasonably machine-usable interfaces
(for output [1]), thus any input options should be treated as such.
keep it as backwards compatible as we can (and so far I guess we didn't have
a single instance of bad example), but I wouldn't mind telling users (esp.
in interactive mode) that --optionX is now called --optionY.
Well, that's what we do with the alias and documentation changes. But
removing --optionX completely would be wrong:
Just to be clear, I am not advocating for removing anything.
- It needlessly breaks scripts
- If you decide to print a deprecation warning, the code usually won't
be much simpler.
- most cases are covered by use of _ALIAS to a better name
The only thing that IMO should be removed but I didn't for compatibility
is the 'secret-set-value's 'base64' parameter as that is insecure. There
isn't a compatible replacement though.
That's debatable. Its not much worse than reading from a file. I mean,
who has access to my $HISTFILE? Only me and root and in both cases the
secret can be changed or read from the file (if the file is not deleted
right away, and even then it could be recovered). Many tools accept
passwords in clear text on cmd line (e.g. curl, wget). If anything, we
could document why --base64 is dangerous (if we haven't done so yet).
Michal
