Re: [PATCH V2 00/11] Live update: cpr-exec

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 04:58:14PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> > On 8/21/2024 2:34 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:09:23PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> > > > On 8/16/2024 12:17 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > What I read so far from Dan is that cpr-transfer seems to be also preferred
> > > from Libvirt POV:
> > > 
> > >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/Zr9-IvoRkGjre4CI@redhat.com
> > > 
> > > Did I read it right?
> > 
> > I read that as: cpr-transfer is a viable option for libvirt.  I don't hear him
> > excluding the possibility of cpr-exec.
> 
> I preferred not having two solution because if they work the same problem
> out, then it potentially means one of them might be leftover at some point,
> unless they suite different needs.  But I don't feel strongly, especially
> if cpr-exec is light if cpr-transfer is there.
> 
> > 
> > I agree that "Dan the libvirt expert prefers cpr-transfer" is a good reason to
> > provide cpr-transfer.  Which I will do.
> > 
> > So does "Steve the OCI expert prefers cpr-exec" carry equal weight, for also
> > providing cpr-exec?
> 
> As an open source project, Libvirt using it means the feature can be
> actively used and tested.  When e.g. there's a new feature replacing CPR we
> know when we can obsolete the old CPR, no matter -exec or -transfer.
> 
> Close sourced projects can also be great itself but naturally are less
> important in open source communities IMHO due to not accessible to anyone
> in the community.  E.g., we never know when an close sourced project
> abandoned a feature, then QEMU can carry over that feature forever without
> knowing who's using it.

In terms of closed source projects, effectively they don't exist from a
QEMU maintainer's POV. Our deprecation & removal policy is designed so
that we don't need to think about who is using stuff.

When QEMU deprecates something, any users (whether open source or closed
source) have 2 releases in which to notice this, and make a request that
we cancel the deprecation, or change their code.

Libvirt is special in the sense that we'll CC libvirt mailing list on
changes to the deprecated.rst file, and we'll often not propose
deprecations in the first place if we know libvirt is using it, since
we can ask libvirt quite easily & libvirt people pay attention to QEMU.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|