On 02/24/2017 02:18 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> I have a preference for option 1 in the long run, but as it seems to be >> upwards compatible from option 2 for -blockdev in 2.9, I'm leaning >> towards option 2 for this release. > > Let me rename the options: > > * "no sugar -blockdev": both "FOO" and "noFOO" are rejected. > > * "positive sugar blockdev": "FOO" is desugared to "FOO=on", "noFOO" to > "noFOO=on". > > Which one do you prefer for 2.9?
My current leanings: For 2.9: keyval_parse() should have no sugar. Both "FOO" and "noFOO" are rejected; an '=' must be present except for an implicit key - although if -blockdev is the only client of keyval_parse(), then it's a tossup whether we want to use it with an implicit key. Also for 2.9: turn on the deprecation warning for QemuOpts negative sugar, but leave positive sugar unchanged (it seems like positive sugar is probably more in use than negative sugar, other than chardev nowait). That way, we still have the option of enabling positive sugar blockdev in a later version, if we decide its useful (and after dealing with any QemuOpts fallout), but are not locked into having to use it. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
