Re: [PATCH 1/9] qapi: New special feature flag "unstable"
Kevin Wolf <kwolf(a)redhat.com> writes:
Am 25.10.2021 um 07:25 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> By convention, names starting with "x-" are experimental. The parts
> of external interfaces so named may be withdrawn or changed
> incompatibly in future releases.
>
> Drawback: promoting something from experimental to stable involves a
> name change. Client code needs to be updated.
>
> Moreover, the convention is not universally observed:
>
> * QOM type "input-barrier" has properties "x-origin",
"y-origin".
> Looks accidental, but it's ABI since 4.2.
>
> * QOM types "memory-backend-file", "memory-backend-memfd",
> "memory-backend-ram", and "memory-backend-epc" have a property
> "x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id" that is documented to be
> stable despite its name.
>
> We could document these exceptions, but documentation helps only
> humans. We want to recognize "unstable" in code, like
"deprecated".
>
> Replace the convention by a new special feature flag "unstable". It
> will be recognized by the QAPI generator, like the existing feature
> flag "deprecated", and unlike regular feature flags.
>
> This commit updates documentation and prepares tests. The next commit
> updates the QAPI schema. The remaining patches update the QAPI
> generator and wire up -compat policy checking.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru(a)redhat.com>
Obviously, replacing the old convention gets rid of the old drawbacks,
but adds a new one: While using x- makes it very obvious for a human
user that this is an unstable feature, a feature flag in the schema will
almost certainly go unnoticed in manual use.
I thought about this, but neglected to put it in writing. My bad.
Manual use of unstable interfaces is mostly fine. Human users can adapt
to changing interfaces. HMP works that way.
Management applications are better off with a feature flag than with a
naming convention we sometimes ignore.
The most potential for trouble is in between: programs that aren't
full-fledged management applications.
If we want to keep "unstable" obvious to the humans who write such
programs, we can continue to require "x-", in addition to the feature
flag. We pay for it with renames, and the risk of forgetting to rename
in time (which is what got us the awkward stable
"x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id"). Tradeoff. I chose not to, but
if y'all think we should...
What we can't do, at least not easily, is to use *only* the "x-"
convention: it is not reliable. We'd have to add a way to say 'this is
stable even though the name starts with "x-"'.