On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Helga Velroyen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. >
Then I guess it's ok to remove it, unless making it deprecated is very easy. Thanks, Guido
