From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34912) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clulG-0006R9-F0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:53:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clulD-00007J-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:53:30 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clulD-000072-3G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:53:27 -0500 References: <3d1c16a1-ec05-0367-e569-64a63b34f2e3@redhat.com> <940ff281-82cd-18cf-160e-c5234f65db18@redhat.com> <9d6c61bc-4a95-ce72-3565-e498f9c2b351@redhat.com> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <16223ebe-e08d-c686-7ff3-a58db88e3a01@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:53:18 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] What's the next QEMU version after 2.9 ? (or: when is a good point in time to get rid of old interfaces) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Gerd Hoffmann , Aurelien Jarno , Yongbok Kim On 2017=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8809=E6=97=A5 16:50, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 09.03.2017 03:21, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 2017=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8808=E6=97=A5 19:22, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 08.03.2017 11:03, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 8 March 2017 at 09:26, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> But anyway, the more important thing that keeps me concerned is: >>>>> Someone >>>>> once told me that we should get rid of old parameters and interf= aces >>>>> (like HMP commands) primarily only when we're changing to a new maj= or >>>>> version number. As you all know, QEMU has a lot of legacy options, >>>>> which >>>>> are likely rather confusing than helpful for the new users nowadays= , >>>>> e.g. things like the "-net channel" option (which is fortunately ev= en >>>>> hardly documented), but maybe also even the whole vlan/hub concept = in >>>>> the net code, or legacy parameters like "-usbdevice". If we switch = to >>>>> version 3.0, could we agree to remove at least some of them? >>>> I think if we are going to deprecate and remove options we need >>>> a clear transition plan for doing so, which means at least one >>>> release where options are "still works, but warn that they >>>> are going away with pointer to documentation or similar info >>>> about their replacement syntax", before actually dropping them. >>> Yes, that's certainly a good idea. But as Daniel suggested in his mai= l, >>> I think we should also have the rule that the option should be marked= as >>> deprecated in multiple releases first - so that the users have a chan= ce >>> to speak up before something gets really removed (otherwise the optio= n >>> could be removed right on the first day after the initial release wit= h >>> the deprecation message, so there is no time for the user to notice t= his >>> and complain). Not sure whether we need three releases, as Daniel >>> suggested, though, but if that's common sense, that's fine for me, to= o. >>> >>> Anyway, I've now started a Wiki page where we could track the removal= of >>> deprecated interfaces: >>> >>> http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/LegacyRemoval >>> >>> Feedback / updates / addition of other legacy interfaces is welcome! >>> >>> Thomas >>> >> I think we may want to add mipsnet to the list too. It's kernel driver >> was removed about 3 years ago. > But that's still the default network of the "mipssim" machine ... > is that machine considered as deprecated, too? > > Thomas I think so, according to [1], it was deprecated. [1] https://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/MIPSsim Thanks