On 22 June 2018 at 15:38, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
So if everyone has adopted we can certainly follow our deprecation policy. Now if deprecation breaks some real world cases it makes no sense to "insist" on that deprecation policy. Really: If latest greatest libvirt does not work 2 weeks before soft freeze I consider this too late.
Why: This breaks MY regression test setup before softfreeze. So I will stop testing qemu in the most critical point in time.
If you would come up with your statement (taking deprecation policy more serious than users) in the Linux kernel I can pretty much guarantee that Linus would call you names.
This is one of those areas where I like to think the QEMU community is a more pleasant place to be than the kernel :-) The fact we have a deprecation policy at all indicates that we are (unlike the kernel) sometimes willing to break things that previously worked for users; but I think we should be a bit pragmatic as well. If one of our largest use cases (libvirt) missed the memo on this one I don't think we do anybody any favours by sticking to the letter of the rules. thanks -- PMM