From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0o3w-0000dW-EI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:55:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0o3v-0001wc-L1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:55:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:55:10 +0100 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20190304145510.57c73177@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <15464582-e8a6-6654-7679-15d87c10af38@redhat.com> References: <1551454936-205218-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <1551454936-205218-2-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190301154947.GJ21251@redhat.com> <20190301183328.20b63e23@redhat.com> <20190301174806.GN21251@redhat.com> <15464582-e8a6-6654-7679-15d87c10af38@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] numa: deprecate 'mem' parameter of '-numa node' option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: "Daniel P. =?UTF-8?B?QmVycmFuZ8Op?=" , peter.maydell@linaro.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > [...] > > So I think this patch has to be dropped & replaced with one that > > simply documents that memdev syntax is preferred. =20 >=20 > That's definitely not enough. I've had a couple of cases already where > we documented that certain options should not be used anymore, and > people simply ignored it (aka. if it ain't broken, don't do any change). > Then they just started to complain when I really tried to remove the > option after the deprecation period. > So Igor, if you can not officially deprecate these things here yet, you > should at least make sure that they can not be used with new machine > types anymore. Then, after a couple of years, when we feel sure that > there are only some few or no people left who still use it with the old > machine types, we can start to discuss the deprecation process again, I > think. Is it acceptable to silently disable CLI options (even if they are broken like in this case) for new machine types? I was under impression that it should go through deprecation first. >=20 > Thomas >=20