Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> writes:
> Am 10.11.2025 um 14:13 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> Clément Chigot <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:09 AM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Clément Chigot <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
>> >> > So it is a special case in a way, but given that this is vvfat, which is
>> >> > known to be unstable, not widely used outside of the occasional manual
>> >> > use and not supported by libvirt, I'm willing to just make the change.
>>
>> I'm fine to treat vvfat as unstable. But it's not marked as such in the
>> QAPI schema! Is that a bug? Again, for Kevin.
>
> Maybe? Though the kind of unstable I think of with vvfat is more than
> just API instability that the QAPI feature is about. vvfat is more a
> dirty (and clever) hack that sometimes works and can be useful enough,
> but if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. Good for one-off uses on
> your personal toy VM, but keep it far away from production. We never
> seriously tried to get it to a properly supportable level.
>
> (And yes, probably none of this is documented as clearly as it should
> be.)
Do we need to differentiate between "unstable interface, may change
incompatibly or be withdrawn in future releases, stay away if you don't
want your software to break when this happens" and "known-wobbly
feature, do not use in production"?
Related ot Daniel's work on marking insecure objects, I think:
Subject: [PATCH v2 00/32] Encode object type security status in code
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:01:11 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
