Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 experimental, and may be withdrawn or changed in an incompatible 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. Is this a case of "there must be a simpler way", or did you actually propose a simpler way? I don't remember...
