On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:31:56AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> writes: > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 04:30:08PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>> The hub supports only USB 1.1. When running out of usb ports it is in > >>> almost all cases the much better choice to add another usb host adapter > >>> (or increase the number of root ports when using xhci) instead of using > >>> the usb hub. > >> > >> Is that actually a strong enough reason to delete this device though ? > >> This reads like its merely something we don't expect to be commonly > >> used, rather than something we would actively want to delete. > > > > This does seem quite aggressive because there may be cases when users > > explicitly want to use old devices. Maybe there is need for a third > > state (better_alternatives?) so we can steer users away from old command > > lines they may have picked up from the web to the modern alternative? > > What exactly do we mean when we call something deprecated? > > For me, it means "you should not normally use this". > > Important special case: "because we intend to remove it."
That's not the special case, it is the regular case - the documented meaning of 'deprecated' in QEMU. When we deprecate something, it is a warning that we intend to delete it in 2 releases time. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
