Am 26.10.2021 um 11:37 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Kevin Wolf <kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Am 25.10.2021 um 07:25 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > >> By convention, names starting with "x-" are experimental. The parts > >> of external interfaces so named may be withdrawn or changed > >> incompatibly in future releases. > >> > >> Drawback: promoting something from experimental to stable involves a > >> name change. Client code needs to be updated. > >> > >> Moreover, the convention is not universally observed: > >> > >> * QOM type "input-barrier" has properties "x-origin", "y-origin". > >> Looks accidental, but it's ABI since 4.2. > >> > >> * QOM types "memory-backend-file", "memory-backend-memfd", > >> "memory-backend-ram", and "memory-backend-epc" have a property > >> "x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id" that is documented to be > >> stable despite its name. > >> > >> We could document these exceptions, but documentation helps only > >> humans. We want to recognize "unstable" in code, like "deprecated". > >> > >> Replace the convention by a new special feature flag "unstable". It > >> will be recognized by the QAPI generator, like the existing feature > >> flag "deprecated", and unlike regular feature flags. > >> > >> This commit updates documentation and prepares tests. The next commit > >> updates the QAPI schema. The remaining patches update the QAPI > >> generator and wire up -compat policy checking. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Obviously, replacing the old convention gets rid of the old drawbacks, > > but adds a new one: While using x- makes it very obvious for a human > > user that this is an unstable feature, a feature flag in the schema will > > almost certainly go unnoticed in manual use. > > I thought about this, but neglected to put it in writing. My bad. > > Manual use of unstable interfaces is mostly fine. Human users can adapt > to changing interfaces. HMP works that way. > > Management applications are better off with a feature flag than with a > naming convention we sometimes ignore. > > The most potential for trouble is in between: programs that aren't > full-fledged management applications. > > If we want to keep "unstable" obvious to the humans who write such > programs, we can continue to require "x-", in addition to the feature > flag. We pay for it with renames, and the risk of forgetting to rename > in time (which is what got us the awkward stable > "x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id"). Tradeoff. I chose not to, but > if y'all think we should... Just to clarify, I'm not implying that we should keep it. I'm merely pointing out that there is a tradeoff that requires us to make a choice. The decision for one of the options should be explicit rather than just happening as a side effect. Documenting that it was a conscious decision is probably best done by adding the reasoning for it to the commit message. > What we can't do, at least not easily, is to use *only* the "x-" > convention: it is not reliable. We'd have to add a way to say 'this is > stable even though the name starts with "x-"'. No question. Kevin
