Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'

John Snow <jsnow(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: By design, we have a single doc comment block for the entire definition. When Kevin invented feature flags (merge commit 4747524f9f2), he added them just to struct types. He added "feature sections" for documenting features. It mirrors the "argument sections" for documenting members. Makes sense. Aside: he neglected to update qapi-code-gen.rst section "Definition documentation", and I failed to catch it. I'll make up for it. Peter and I then added feature flags to the remaining definitions (commit 23394b4c39 and 013b4efc9b). Feature sections make sense there, too. I then added them to struct members (commit 84ab008687). Instead of doing something fancy for documenting feature flags of members, I simply used the existing feature sections. This conflates member features with struct features. What could "something fancy" be? All we have for members is "argument sections", which are basically a name plus descriptive text. We'd have to add structure to that, say nest feature sections into argument sections. I have no appetite for that right now. [...] I'm pretty sure the x- names that don't get feature 'unstable' are actually stable; see my reply to Kashyap. I did check git history for each that does get feature 'unstable'. Double-checking is of course welcome. Thanks!