23/09/2025 15:28, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Kevin Traynor wrote: > > Yes, that is a good point for discussion. Seen as support for the legacy > > names were already dropped and I wasn't aware of any ABI like policy > > about it, I thought there may be a preference for deprecation > > warning/continuing to move to the new name only. > > > > I would be happy to keep the legacy name without a warning/deprecation > > for a longer term and we could adopt this as general guideline by > > default too. It should not cost much effort to do this. > > Agreed. If we do decide after a while to remove an old name, then we should > do a deprecation notice first.
I don't think we should require a notice if there is no deprecation, just an alias added. > > Another minor point is, if this needs a Fixes tag? Yes, in the sense it > > feels like it added a banana skin for users (the patches are because I > > hit this issue with 25.07). I didn't add it for now, as no guarantees > > were broken and there isn't an upstream stable for backporting to anyway. > > If there is no backporting, I'm not sure it matters. Maybe add one anyway > to imply that this was something that should have been thought of in the > original patch. Backports are not only for upstream branches. If someone wants to maintain 25.07 privately, it is good to know what to backport.
