From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42953) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAljR-0000PI-Jo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:51:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAljQ-0005HY-FW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:51:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAljQ-0005HO-4V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:51:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:51:41 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20111003165140.GK20141@redhat.com> References: <1316443309-23843-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4E88C7DB.9090105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111002210802.GC8072@redhat.com> <4E89B0D4.3090203@us.ibm.com> <20111003133802.GD18920@redhat.com> <4E89BDCE.2010502@codemonkey.ws> <20111003144109.GE19689@redhat.com> <4E89CE20.6050706@codemonkey.ws> <20111003154554.GE20141@redhat.com> <4E89DD2E.700@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E89DD2E.700@codemonkey.ws> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] New Migration Protocol using Visitor Interface List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Stefan Berger , Michael Roth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/03/2011 10:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>BTW, putting this info properly into migration stats would probably > >>be pretty useful. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Anthony Liguori > > > >Problem is adding anything to monitor makes me worry > >about future compatibility so much I usually just give up. > >IMO we really need a namespace for in-development experimental > >commands, like "unsupported-XXX", this would belong. > > Or just make all of QMP unsupported across any given version. I'm > not kidding about that actually. > > If we document what the protocol is for any given version, then a > layer like libvirt can deal with providing a consistent interface. Once distros ship qemu, people will use it. Once they use it in some way for long, it becomes the supposted interface. No one reads documentation, obviously :) - do you expect people to re-read qemu documentation *with every release*? > > I often wonder who we're trying to preserve compatibility for. Part > of libvirt's mission statement is providing a stable API so why not > leverage that mission and get us out of the compatibility business. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori you can't force everyone to use libvirt. Part of QMP mission statement was a stable interface. If it's not that I don't know what it's for. -- MST