[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 3.0 ?

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 3.0 ?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:24:24 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 23.11.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
>>>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is
>>>>> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ?
>>>>> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe do a 3.0 after
>>>>> 2.11, e.g. here:
>>>>>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05056.html
>>>>> I'd still like to see that happen... Peter, any thoughts on this?
>>>> So, as I just thought about preparing the new machine for s390x as
>>>> well: Did we reach any consensus about what the next qemu version will
>>>> be called?
>>> I haven't seen any sufficiently solid plan to make me want to
>>> pick anything except "2.12".
>> I still don't think that we need a big plan for this... The change from
>> 1.7 to 2.0 was also rather arbitrary, wasn't it?
>> Anyway, I've now started a Wiki page to collect ideas:
>>  https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Version3.0
>> Maybe we can jump to version 3.0 if there are enough doable items on the
>> list that we can all agree upon.
> From the mgmt app / libvirt POV, I'm against the idea of doing such an
> API incompatible release associated with major versions. The whole point
> of the documented deprecation timeframe, was that we can incrementally
> remove legacy interfaces without having a big bang break the whole
> world.

Yes, I agree ... that's why I tried to split the list into a "doable"
part (which hopefully does not mean any breakage for the upper stack),
and a "controversial" part (which we could use for collecting ideas, but
it is likely not feasible to do it any time soon). Sorry for not stating
this more clearly.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]