Re: deprecation of in-tree builds

[Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

21:14 Ned, 22.03.2020. Peter Maydell
> *Everything* is supposed to work in out of tree builds.
> If it doesn't that's a bug -- unless people report bugs
> we'll never know to fix them. Most developers use out
> of tree builds and all our CI is out of tree builds, so
> they actually get better ad-hoc and CI coverage than
> in-tree. Out-of-tree is overwhelmingly what we build and
> what we test, so it's in-tree that breaks more often and
> where I'd expect to find more things we didn't realise
> were broken.
>
> To be clear, I'm not saying we should pull the rug out
> from anybody. I'm saying:
>  * we should clearly say what our plans are, with a
>    long warning if we can reasonably give longer warning
>  * if there's anything that we would accidentally
>    be breaking with those plans, we should adjust the
>    plans so we don't break things we didn't mean to break
>
> This doesn't seem controversial to me...
>

OK, given all info you presented in last paragraphs and elsewhere - that
seems to have more emphasis on potential adjustments, and the obligatory
condition that nothing breaks - I agree with the approach you spelled out,
or, in other words, agree with introducing deprecation note.

I hope that we all perceive occasional differences in opinions as our value
(and, I even claim, a key to success of any dev community), and not a
nuisance or a danger.

Thanks! :)

Regards,
Aleksandar

> thanks
> -- PMM

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1773 bytes --]