Re: [PATCH 1/9] qapi: New special feature flag "unstable"
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:15:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:37:19AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> >> Management applications are better off with a feature
flag than with a
> >> naming convention we sometimes ignore.
> >
> > We will sometimes ignore/forget the feature flag too though, so I'm
> > not convinced there's much difference there.
>
> -compat unstable-input=reject,unstable-output=hide should help you stay
> on the straight & narrow :)
That's from the pov of the mgmt app. I meant from the POV of QEMU
maintainers forgetting to add "unstable" flag, just as they might
forget to add a "x-" prefix.
Got it.
My point was that feature flag "unstable" is an unequivocal signal for
"this thing is unstable", while a name starting with "x-" isn't:
there
are exceptions.
The converse is a wash: we can forget to mark something unstable no
matter how the mark works.