On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:39 AM Hanna Reitz <hre...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 17.09.21 07:40, John Snow wrote: > > The scary message interferes with the iotests output. Coincidentally, if > > iotests works by removing this, then it's good evidence that we don't > > really need to scare people away from using it. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> > > --- > > python/qemu/aqmp/__init__.py | 14 -------------- > > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > I definitely won’t give an R-b for this one, because that would require > me reviewing the AQMP series, and, well, you know. > > Yep, no worries. I'd feel bad if you started digging into it. Not the best use of your time. I am trying to shield you from this junk, not pull you into it. (but, I hope the new library is easy to use. I went out of my way to make sure the transition would be as seamless as possible for iotest writers, and I genuinely hope I achieved that. Though as you've seen, there's a few messy bits -- One of the reasons for sending this series out to list so soon was precisely to force someone to witness the ugly bits so I could align my thinking on how best to address them.) Also, if I were to review the AQMP series and could actually give R-bs > in good faith, why would I accept adding this message? I mean, if I’d > reviewed it, I’d’ve had to trust it. > > So, öhm, I’m fine with dropping this message because evidently I’d’ve > never agreed to adding it in the first place (had I reviewed the AQMP > series). > > Hanna > > I added as a pre-emptive mollification, it's been in my series for a while. I jokingly refer to it as "tech preview". The asyncio stuff is fairly new (even to Python programmers) and though I have tried my very hardest to test that library as thoroughly as I possibly could, it seems like everyone's reaction has been "Ah jeez, I dunno if I can truly review this" so I added a little warning to ease minds a bit and try to make people feel like they were committing to less.
