On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Guido Trotter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Helga Velroyen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guido Trotter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Helga Velroyen <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > This is an only slightly related patch to this series. > >> > So far Ganeti printed a deprectation warning if someone > >> > used the --no-lvm-storage. However, we don't want to > >> > maintain it forever and thus we remove it completely > >> > as well. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Helga Velroyen <[email protected]> > >> > >> Since this is just cli code, would it make sense to leave it there for > >> at least another version? > >> (Rationale, this is only part of the yet-to-be-released 2.9 version, > >> so perhaps we should remove it after 2.9 is stable or rc?) > > > > > > Hm, this patch is targeted for master, thus 2.10, doesn't that cover your > > request that the deprecation note is still printed in 2.9 stable/rc? > (Maybe > > I am misunderstanding something here). > > Let's say we leave it in for 2.9 and 2.10, and then remove it in 2.11, ok? > I'm just worried it won't be seen "long enough" given that we have > short releases now. > Okay, then I'll hold this patch back and resend it when we have a 2.11 branch. Should I do the same for --no-drbd-storage? There I did not make a deprecation warning but just removed the whole option. But I guess this option was used a lot less often and it was not even documented properly in the man pages. Cheers, Helga
