[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Deprecating stuff for 4.2 (was: [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecatio
Deprecating stuff for 4.2 (was: [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecation to machine clients)
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:41:29 +0100
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden> writes:
> 07.11.2019 21:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Pre-release period, time to deprecate some stuffs :)
>> How should we proceed? Do you have something in mind?
>> There are older threads about this. Should we start a new thread? Gather the
>> different ideas on the Wiki?
>> (Obviously you are not the one responsible of this topic, you just happen to
>> be the last one worried about it on the list).
4.2.0-rc0 has been tagged, i.e. we're in hard freeze already. Only bug
fixes are accepted during hard freeze. We've occasionally bent this
rule after -rc0 for borderline cases, e.g. to tweak a new external
interface before the release calcifies it. Making a case for bending
the rules becomes harder with each -rc.
Ideally, we'd double-check new interfaces for gaffes before a release,
and whether old interfaces that have been replaced now should be
deprecated. There's rarely time for that, and pretty much never for
releases right after KVM Forum.
So no, I don't have anything in mind for 4.2.
We intend to tag -rc1 next Tuesday. To make that deadline, we'd need
patches, not just ideas.
> I wanted to resend, but faced some problems, and understand that I can't do
> it in time before soft-freeze..
> But you say, that we can deprecate something even after hard-freeze?
> Ok, the problem that I faced, is that deprecation warnings breaks some
> iotests.. What can we do?
> 1. Update iotests...
> 1.1 Just update iotests outputs to show warnings. Then, in next release
> cycle, update iotests, to not use deprecated things
Sounds workable to me, but I'm not the maintainer.
> 1.2 Update iotests to not use deprecated things.. Not appropriate for hard
Unnecessarily risky compared to 1.1.
> 2. Commit deprecations without warnings.. But how do people find out about
We do it for QMP, but only because we still lack the means to warn
> Next, what exactly to deprecate? As I understand, we can't deprecate
> drive-mirror now?
> So I propose to:
> 1. deprecate drive-backup
> 2. add optional filter-node-name parameter to drive-mirror, to correspond to
> commit and mirror
> 3. deprecate that filter-node-name is optional for commit and mirror.
To have a chance there, we need patches a.s.a.p.