On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:06:18 +0100 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Anthony Liguori <aligu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > > > Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> While I think these promises are appropriate for a mature version of the > >> protocol, I do not think we should make them for 0.12. > >> > >> We've just dreamed up version 0.1 of the protocol. It hasn't been used > >> in anger. Yes, we put some serious thought in it, and we even have > >> prototype code using it in libvirt, but let's face it, we're not > >> infallible: we *will* have to evolve stuff. > >> > >> Without a real user, there is no real need to constrict evolution of the > >> protocol in such a harsh way. All it'll buy is is compatibility cruft. > >> Passage of time will bring us plenty of cruft without us setting > >> ourselves up for extras. > >> > >> Let's cut ourselves some slack here, please. > >> > > > > I've been working on the release notes and I was intending on > > announcing the QMP support in 0.12 as a "preview" with full support in > > 0.13. > > > > The idea being that we would try to maintain compatibility but > > "preview" gives us enough slack that if we break it, we can at least > > claim that it was just a preview ;-) > > Works for me. But then the unconditional promise in this patch is > misleading. If we care, we should amend it to spell out "this is > preview, all promises are null and void". I'd prefer to just drop this part.