From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48229) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cltmQ-0002Rb-Ua for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:50:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cltmN-0004Nf-1o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:50:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48756) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cltmM-0004Li-PF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:50:34 -0500 References: <3d1c16a1-ec05-0367-e569-64a63b34f2e3@redhat.com> <940ff281-82cd-18cf-160e-c5234f65db18@redhat.com> <9d6c61bc-4a95-ce72-3565-e498f9c2b351@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:50:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9d6c61bc-4a95-ce72-3565-e498f9c2b351@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] What's the next QEMU version after 2.9 ? (or: when is a good point in time to get rid of old interfaces) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jason Wang , Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Gerd Hoffmann , Aurelien Jarno , Yongbok Kim On 09.03.2017 03:21, Jason Wang wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 2017=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8808=E6=97=A5 19:22, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08.03.2017 11:03, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 8 March 2017 at 09:26, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> But anyway, the more important thing that keeps me concerned is: >>>> Someone >>>> once told me that we should get rid of old parameters and interfac= es >>>> (like HMP commands) primarily only when we're changing to a new majo= r >>>> version number. As you all know, QEMU has a lot of legacy options, >>>> which >>>> are likely rather confusing than helpful for the new users nowadays, >>>> e.g. things like the "-net channel" option (which is fortunately eve= n >>>> hardly documented), but maybe also even the whole vlan/hub concept i= n >>>> the net code, or legacy parameters like "-usbdevice". If we switch t= o >>>> version 3.0, could we agree to remove at least some of them? >>> I think if we are going to deprecate and remove options we need >>> a clear transition plan for doing so, which means at least one >>> release where options are "still works, but warn that they >>> are going away with pointer to documentation or similar info >>> about their replacement syntax", before actually dropping them. >> Yes, that's certainly a good idea. But as Daniel suggested in his mail= , >> I think we should also have the rule that the option should be marked = as >> deprecated in multiple releases first - so that the users have a chanc= e >> to speak up before something gets really removed (otherwise the option >> could be removed right on the first day after the initial release with >> the deprecation message, so there is no time for the user to notice th= is >> and complain). Not sure whether we need three releases, as Daniel >> suggested, though, but if that's common sense, that's fine for me, too= . >> >> Anyway, I've now started a Wiki page where we could track the removal = of >> deprecated interfaces: >> >> http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/LegacyRemoval >> >> Feedback / updates / addition of other legacy interfaces is welcome! >> >> Thomas >> >=20 > I think we may want to add mipsnet to the list too. It's kernel driver > was removed about 3 years ago. But that's still the default network of the "mipssim" machine ... is that machine considered as deprecated, too? Thomas