From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9aqj-0003WQ-LB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9aqi-0002vZ-PD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9aqi-0002tf-IQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:44 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1479874588-1969-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1479874588-1969-4-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <898038411.1379870.1479893131197.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87h96yp9ez.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <13a6a125-3968-26cf-4f3e-c51f4df8cf61@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <13a6a125-3968-26cf-4f3e-c51f4df8cf61@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2016 08:24:31 -0600") Message-ID: <8737iim8xi.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] qapi: Drop support for qobject_from_jsonf("%"PRId64) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Michael Roth , programmingkidx@gmail.com Eric Blake writes: > On 11/23/2016 08:17 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> >> The first two patches are bug fixes, and as such they should be >> considered for 2.8. >> >> This patch doesn't fix anything, and it might conceivably break >> something. Too late for 2.8. > > Ah, but it DOES fix check-qjson on Mac OS. PATCH 1+2 do, don't they? > As mentioned to Paolo, I'm splitting this into two parts for the v2 > series (the first part to fix testsuite failures on Mac OS which is > still 2.8 material, the second to rip out %I64d which becomes more of > 2.9 material). > >>> My other argument is that I _do_ intend to rip out ALL of the dynamic >>> JSON support, at which point we no longer have %d, let along %lld. >>> Until you see that followup series and decide whether it was too >>> invasive for 2.9, it's hard to say that we are throwing out anything >>> useful in this short-term fix for 2.8. So I guess that gives me a >>> reason to hurry up and finish my work on that series to post it today >>> before I take a long holiday weekend. >> >> If we rip out _jsonf() in 2.9, then ripping out currently unused parts >> of it in 2.8 during hard freeze is needless churn at a rather >> inconvenient time. >> >> If we decice not to rip it out, it may well have to be reverted. >> >> I don't think there's a need to hurry, as this patch isn't appropriate >> for 2.8 anyway, so there's no reason to quickly decide what to do with >> the followup series now. > > Fair enough. > > v2 coming soon. Thanks!