On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:02:54PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 August 2013 13:49, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On x86, we've long had versioned machine names, so that we can > > make changes in future QEMU releases without breaking guest ABI > > compatibility. AFAICT, the problem has basically been ignored > > on non-x86 platforms in QEMU. > > Yes; this is deliberate on the basis that starting to do this > is accepting a huge pile of maintenance workload (ie checking > for things which change, keeping around a pile of old version > machine models, retaining migration compatibility between > old and new versions). Which isn't to say I'm against it > but it means I'm not doing it until the pushback from users > that it's necessary is pretty strong. > > > Given the increased interest in > > ARM in particular, should we use the addition of this new 'virt' > > machine type, as an opportunity to introduce versioning for > > ARM too. eg make this machine be called 'virt-1.0.6' and then > > have 'virt' simply be an alias that points to the most recent > > version. > > I'm not convinced we're at the point where we need to do this > yet. Ok, fair enough. Something to consider in the future then. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
