08.11.2019 9:41, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
>
>> 07.11.2019 21:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> [...]
>>> Pre-release period, time to deprecate some stuffs :)
>>>
>>> How should we proceed? Do you have something in mind?
>>>
>>> There are older threads about this. Should we start a new thread? Gather
>>> the different ideas on the Wiki?
>>>
>>> (Obviously you are not the one responsible of this topic, you just happen
>>> to be the last one worried about it on the list).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Phil.
>
> 4.2.0-rc0 has been tagged, i.e. we're in hard freeze already. Only bug
> fixes are accepted during hard freeze. We've occasionally bent this
> rule after -rc0 for borderline cases, e.g. to tweak a new external
> interface before the release calcifies it. Making a case for bending
> the rules becomes harder with each -rc.
>
> Ideally, we'd double-check new interfaces for gaffes before a release,
> and whether old interfaces that have been replaced now should be
> deprecated. There's rarely time for that, and pretty much never for
> releases right after KVM Forum.
>
> So no, I don't have anything in mind for 4.2.
>
> We intend to tag -rc1 next Tuesday. To make that deadline, we'd need
> patches, not just ideas.
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wanted to resend, but faced some problems, and understand that I can't do
>> it in time before soft-freeze..
>> But you say, that we can deprecate something even after hard-freeze?
>
> See above.
>
>> Ok, the problem that I faced, is that deprecation warnings breaks some
>> iotests.. What can we do?
>>
>> 1. Update iotests...
>> 1.1 Just update iotests outputs to show warnings. Then, in next release
>> cycle, update iotests, to not use deprecated things
>
> Sounds workable to me, but I'm not the maintainer.
>
>> or
>> 1.2 Update iotests to not use deprecated things.. Not appropriate for
>> hard freeze.
>
> Unnecessarily risky compared to 1.1.
>
>> or
>> 2. Commit deprecations without warnings.. But how do people find out about
>> this?
>
> Not nice.
>
> We do it for QMP, but only because we still lack the means to warn
> there.
>
>> Next, what exactly to deprecate? As I understand, we can't deprecate
>> drive-mirror now?
>> So I propose to:
>>
>> 1. deprecate drive-backup
>> 2. add optional filter-node-name parameter to drive-mirror, to correspond to
>> commit and mirror
>> 3. deprecate that filter-node-name is optional for commit and mirror.
>
> To have a chance there, we need patches a.s.a.p.
>
OK, I'll send today and we'll see, what to do with it.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
