[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Configurable policy for handling deprecated interface

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Configurable policy for handling deprecated interfaces
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:28:37 +0100

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:58, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> > If this only covers QMP, should we make the argument to -compat
> > have a name that expresses that? eg deprecated-qmp-input,
> > deprecated-qmp-output ?
> It's only implemented for QMP so far.  But we really want it for all
> external interfaces for use by machines.  Today, that's QMP and CLI.
> Naming the parameters deprecated-qmp-{input,output} leads to separate
> settings for QMP and CLI.

I think that's a good thing. I might have fixed up my handling
of QMP to avoid deprecated behaviours but not yet got round to
doing that for my command line option choices (or vice-versa).

> > Also, it seems a bit repetitive to say 'deprecated' here all
> > the time -- do you have a future use of -compat in mind which
> > would be to adjust something that is *not* deprecated ? If
> > not, maybe the 'deprecated' part should be in the option name
> > rather than in every argument, eg
> >
> >   -deprecation-compat qmp-input=crash,qmp-output=hide,cli-option=reject
> >
> > ?
> My cover letter hints at such future uses: "We may want to extend it to
> cover [...] experimental features."

Ah, I read "-compat covers only deprecated syntactic aspects of QMP.  We
may want to extend it to cover semantic aspects, CLI, and experimental
features." as implying "deprecated semantic aspects, deprecated CLI,
and deprecated experimental features"...

-- PMM

reply via email to

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