Am 08.11.2017 um 11:49 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:44:01AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 07/11/2017 18:39, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 06:26:38PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > >> bdrv_set_read_only() is used by some block drivers to override the > > >> read-only option given by the user. This is not how read-only images > > >> generally work in QEMU: Instead of second guessing what the user really > > >> meant (which currently includes making an image read-only even if the > > >> user didn't only use the default, but explicitly said read-only=off), we > > >> should error out if we can't provide what the user requested. > > >> > > >> This adds deprecation warnings to all callers of bdrv_set_read_only() so > > >> that the behaviour can be corrected after the usual deprecation period. > > > > > > All deprecations should be listed in "Deprecated features" appendix > > > in qemu-doc.texi. This probably fits in the 'system emulator command > > > line arguments' section, even though its talking about the need for > > > the user to add something extra, rather than deleting something they > > > currently use. > > > > I am not sure this counts as deprecation, but it should go in the > > release notes as "future incompatible changes", and that section > > probably should go in qemu-doc.texi itself. > > Yeah, adding a "Incompatible changes" appendix to the qemu-doc.texi > would be useful, listing the planned change, and when it is actually > made. That way apps adding support for a feature have an indication > of any incompatiblities they might need to care about.
You mean a section containing future incompatible changes as well as already implemented incompatible changes? What would we do with the existing "Deprecated features" section? Would it become a subsection of "Incompatible changes"? Or would we just rename it and the subsections would stay on the same level and get "deprecated" added to their title? Or a completely different structure? I'm okay with adding a little documentation in this patch if I know what it should look like, but if it turns into a major overhaul of the documentation on incompatible changes, it's probably out of scope for this patch. Kevin