From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPq5-0001Py-KO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:18:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPcB-0002VD-UE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:03:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPcB-0002TK-26 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:03:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622E380461 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:03:45 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20190430100345.GJ3716@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <20190423212246.3542-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20190423212246.3542-2-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20190425174208.GO18406@habkost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190425174208.GO18406@habkost.net> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qapi: SupportStatusInfo struct List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , mprivozn@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:42:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:20:58AM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > > Hi Eduardo, > > > > > > On 04/23/2019 06:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > This struct will be used to represent support and deprecation > > > status of QEMU features. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > > > --- > > > qapi/common.json | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/qapi/common.json b/qapi/common.json > > > index 99d313ef3b..b59d0dc66b 100644 > > > --- a/qapi/common.json > > > +++ b/qapi/common.json > > > @@ -193,3 +193,27 @@ > > > 'ppc64', 'riscv32', 'riscv64', 's390x', 'sh4', > > > 'sh4eb', 'sparc', 'sparc64', 'tricore', 'unicore32', > > > 'x86_64', 'xtensa', 'xtensaeb' ] } > > > + > > > +## > > > +# @SupportStatusInfo: > > > +# > > > +# Information on support status of a given feature > > > +# (e.g. machine type) > > > +# > > > +# @deprecated: if true, the given feature is deprecated and may be removed > > > +# in future versions of QEMU according to the QEMU deprecation > > > +# policy. > > > > Eventually management software will need the know the QEMU version the > > feature is planed for removal. So makes sense to include a field to capture > > that information as well or do you expect it to be added (as a good > > practice) in the 'status-message'? > > If we really want to provide extra information like version > numbers, adding a separate field sounds better than using > status-message. > > But I'm not sure we really want to include this amount of detail > in the API. Mentioning explicit version numbers could make > things more complex for downstream distributions of QEMU that > include backports and/or have a different deprecation policy. > > I'd like to hear opinions from others. Yeah, I'm *not* in favour of mentioning any version number in this. Our "2 cycle" deprecation rule is more of a guideline than a strict rule. It can be extended if we find some blocking problem that makes removal more painful than expected. 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 :| From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A557DC43219 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 769F72080C for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:27:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 769F72080C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42759 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPyo-000179-Lv for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:27:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPq5-0001Py-KO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:18:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPcB-0002VD-UE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:03:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLPcB-0002TK-26 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:03:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622E380461 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.22.189]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E996A70582; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:03:45 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20190430100345.GJ3716@redhat.com> References: <20190423212246.3542-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20190423212246.3542-2-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20190425174208.GO18406@habkost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190425174208.GO18406@habkost.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:03:52 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qapi: SupportStatusInfo struct X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: mprivozn@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Markus Armbruster Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Message-ID: <20190430100345.ycpcyL97snOCc8GrWyYXOlaxi9H12vTANnYJCKQYShw@z> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:42:08PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:20:58AM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: > > Hi Eduardo, > > > > > > On 04/23/2019 06:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > This struct will be used to represent support and deprecation > > > status of QEMU features. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > > > --- > > > qapi/common.json | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/qapi/common.json b/qapi/common.json > > > index 99d313ef3b..b59d0dc66b 100644 > > > --- a/qapi/common.json > > > +++ b/qapi/common.json > > > @@ -193,3 +193,27 @@ > > > 'ppc64', 'riscv32', 'riscv64', 's390x', 'sh4', > > > 'sh4eb', 'sparc', 'sparc64', 'tricore', 'unicore32', > > > 'x86_64', 'xtensa', 'xtensaeb' ] } > > > + > > > +## > > > +# @SupportStatusInfo: > > > +# > > > +# Information on support status of a given feature > > > +# (e.g. machine type) > > > +# > > > +# @deprecated: if true, the given feature is deprecated and may be removed > > > +# in future versions of QEMU according to the QEMU deprecation > > > +# policy. > > > > Eventually management software will need the know the QEMU version the > > feature is planed for removal. So makes sense to include a field to capture > > that information as well or do you expect it to be added (as a good > > practice) in the 'status-message'? > > If we really want to provide extra information like version > numbers, adding a separate field sounds better than using > status-message. > > But I'm not sure we really want to include this amount of detail > in the API. Mentioning explicit version numbers could make > things more complex for downstream distributions of QEMU that > include backports and/or have a different deprecation policy. > > I'd like to hear opinions from others. Yeah, I'm *not* in favour of mentioning any version number in this. Our "2 cycle" deprecation rule is more of a guideline than a strict rule. It can be extended if we find some blocking problem that makes removal more painful than expected. 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 :|