On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:44 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/08/2021 15.40, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 2:10 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/08/2021 20.56, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>> On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> Is this intended to be a stable interface? Interfaces intended just for > >>>> debugging usually aren't. > >>> > >>> I don't think we need to make it a stable interface, but I won't > >>> mind if we declare it stable. > >> > >> If we don't feel 100% certain yet, it's maybe better to introduce this with > >> a "x-" prefix first, isn't it? I.e. "x-query-x86-cpuid" ... then it's clear > >> that this is only experimental/debugging/not-stable yet. Just my 0.02 €. > > > > That would be my expectation. Is this a documented policy? > > > > According to docs/interop/qmp-spec.txt : > > Any command or member name beginning with "x-" is deemed > experimental, and may be withdrawn or changed in an incompatible > manner in a future release. Thanks! I had looked at other QMP docs, but not qmp-spec.txt. In my reply above, please read "make it a stable interface" as "declare it as supported by not using the 'x-' prefix". I don't think we have to make it stable, but I won't argue against it if the current proposal is deemed acceptable by other maintainers. Personally, I'm still frustrated by the complexity of the current proposal, but I don't want to block it just because of my frustration. -- Eduardo
