From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFFCC433F5 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:31:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCDCF60F02 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:31:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org BCDCF60F02 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:54734 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfbXZ-0000qI-UU for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:31:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58502) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfbVe-00074t-9k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:29:58 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:30719) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfbVc-00083N-Er for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:29:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1635312595; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LjowXWC6PO2mLOqrNtcc7gzN0FXny/h0Nw915NmJjKM=; b=YaJdDBI10SOWJUrlEDiHYEG5cCCXyNYP+lTS9kZiGsef1CF1ij3QvqikoSxO9iCWUuecWV DzUW0GZe4u3N88H9aaV0tM9WToKh79NGb55hrcimmGf/NnCQvRDcVQFH5rksEW4HOF26nj Z0TO3IKQpPaCc5FNyOTFiMPJkpgG51w= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-140-14gPUzn5PJCS_iApdDpSGw-1; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:29:51 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 14gPUzn5PJCS_iApdDpSGw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4CD8100C66B; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-7.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.7]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C185DF21; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8DC3E11380A7; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:29:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] qapi: New special feature flag "unstable" References: <20211025052532.3859634-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20211025052532.3859634-2-armbru@redhat.com> <87r1c83z5c.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87a6ivg6m9.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:29:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:22:43 +0100") Message-ID: <87r1c7c9xa.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -8 X-Spam_score: -0.9 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.9 / 5.0 requ) DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , pkrempa@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com, libguestfs@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 writes: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:15:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 writes: >>=20 >> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:37:19AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: [...] >> >> Management applications are better off with a feature flag than with = a >> >> naming convention we sometimes ignore. >> > >> > We will sometimes ignore/forget the feature flag too though, so I'm >> > not convinced there's much difference there. >>=20 >> -compat unstable-input=3Dreject,unstable-output=3Dhide should help you s= tay >> on the straight & narrow :) > > That's from the pov of the mgmt app. I meant from the POV of QEMU > maintainers forgetting to add "unstable" flag, just as they might > forget to add a "x-" prefix. Got it. My point was that feature flag "unstable" is an unequivocal signal for "this thing is unstable", while a name starting with "x-" isn't: there are exceptions. The converse is a wash: we can forget to mark something unstable no matter how the mark works.