On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/03/2011 10:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>BTW, putting this info properly into migration stats would probably > >>be pretty useful. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Anthony Liguori > > > >Problem is adding anything to monitor makes me worry > >about future compatibility so much I usually just give up. > >IMO we really need a namespace for in-development experimental > >commands, like "unsupported-XXX", this would belong. > > Or just make all of QMP unsupported across any given version. I'm > not kidding about that actually. > > If we document what the protocol is for any given version, then a > layer like libvirt can deal with providing a consistent interface.
Once distros ship qemu, people will use it. Once they use it in some way for long, it becomes the supposted interface. No one reads documentation, obviously :) - do you expect people to re-read qemu documentation *with every release*? > > I often wonder who we're trying to preserve compatibility for. Part > of libvirt's mission statement is providing a stable API so why not > leverage that mission and get us out of the compatibility business. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori you can't force everyone to use libvirt. Part of QMP mission statement was a stable interface. If it's not that I don't know what it's for. -- MST