qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
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)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:24:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170308112441.GI7470@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <940ff281-82cd-18cf-160e-c5234f65db18@redhat.com>

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:22:24PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 08.03.2017 11:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 8 March 2017 at 09:26, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> 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 interfaces
> >> (like HMP commands) primarily only when we're changing to a new major
> >> 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 even
> >> 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 mail,
> 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 chance
> to speak up before something gets really removed (otherwise the option
> could be removed right on the first day after the initial release with
> the deprecation message, so there is no time for the user to notice this
> and complain). Not sure whether we need three releases, as Daniel
> suggested, though, but if that's common sense, that's fine for me, too.

FYI, I didn't put any thought into my 3 releases / 12 months numbers. I
just arbitrarily picked them out of the hat, so don't consider it my
endorsement of that particular length of time :-) I think 2 is the minimum
number of releases we should deprecate for, beyond that, I'm open minded

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-    http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-08 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-08  8:26 [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) Thomas Huth
2017-03-08 10:03 ` Peter Maydell
2017-03-08 11:22   ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-08 11:24     ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
2017-03-09 12:33       ` Markus Armbruster
2017-03-09  2:21     ` Jason Wang
2017-03-09  8:50       ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-09  9:53         ` Jason Wang
2017-03-09 10:20           ` Yongbok Kim
2017-03-10 11:07             ` Jason Wang
2017-03-10 11:22               ` Peter Maydell
2017-03-10 11:53                 ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-10 11:58                   ` Yongbok Kim
2018-04-24 19:45                     ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2017-03-09 10:11         ` [Qemu-devel] external snapshots freezes block device since qemu 2.8 Piotr Rybicki
2017-03-09 12:26           ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2017-04-05 22:18             ` John Snow
2017-04-06  9:25               ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2017-03-10 14:49           ` Kashyap Chamarthy
2017-03-10 15:44             ` Piotr Rybicki
2017-03-08 10:20 ` [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) Daniel P. Berrange
2017-03-08 11:19   ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-04-12 13:47     ` Marc-André Lureau
2017-04-12 14:10       ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-03-09 16:00 ` Kevin Wolf
2017-03-24 22:10 ` John Snow
2017-03-27  8:06   ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-27 12:01     ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-03-27 12:49       ` Peter Maydell
2017-04-03 14:19         ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-04-11 12:53           ` Markus Armbruster
2017-04-18  9:51             ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-04-18 11:57               ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-04-18 17:18                 ` John Snow
2017-04-19  5:53                   ` Markus Armbruster
2017-04-19 10:35                     ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-04-19 10:15                   ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-04-19 23:08                     ` John Snow
2017-04-20  5:40                       ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-04-20 11:10                         ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2017-03-27 12:56       ` [Qemu-devel] Deprecating the -net option (was: What's the next QEMU version after 2.9 ? (or: when is a good point in time to get rid of old interfaces)) Thomas Huth
2017-03-27 13:09         ` [Qemu-devel] Deprecating the -net option Thomas Huth
2017-03-27 15:04           ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-03-27 19:04     ` [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) John Snow
2017-03-27 19:46       ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-29 16:21       ` [Qemu-devel] Deprecating old machine types Thomas Huth
2017-03-29 16:46         ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2017-03-29 16:54           ` Thomas Huth
2017-03-29 16:58           ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-03-29 21:42             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-30  8:04             ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-03-28 17:18     ` [Qemu-devel] Deprecating the -drive option is a good point in time to get rid of old interfaces) Kevin Wolf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170308112441.GI7470@redhat.com \
    --to=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=thuth@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).