From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEE8C1975A for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6309720722 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VgterhDr" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6309720722 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:49654 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jG7UD-0007S5-HM for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:46:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jG7TS-00072K-3h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:45:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jG7TQ-0006Sm-T8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]:32980) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jG7TQ-0006SX-KE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:45:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id a25so14427199wrd.0 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jeyki5JShoyTKH4jDq5slm6Y+jJT8tNYOQAhNhsq3Oo=; b=VgterhDrAQg1Y3nOFbIFAUd6ftI/avB6tI3td8Ft93c3nSEVn6IYuHmq4uQi+yEzV/ a3Fz4gb3daNO0X9RvTKNT8oYSmINHcyu2Ipwdvy2St7O/scf/uN5lKh6NlJpgaTMQXlp Jx0jbCWg0k102zfUshYik3sAH+Ri9q30BtWT7hCVhU53jZgQXjMkaQRD2Oak42W2Igg4 zwDYjY0idu2E4rca7AU7m4UsZkSum2ZiXmJfY9Fu/DuRFgz16/32SNKuJsPCjLQmWw8c eUQ5GVkUh/ntqeoG4/1fg4mAqee34+NT4pbItiG97LFvnudtDTOmZwr6Esn7ovFrtR/F 8yBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jeyki5JShoyTKH4jDq5slm6Y+jJT8tNYOQAhNhsq3Oo=; b=gBKkl1uAOsqnUtSH4LjUs06dh63cUuGWLbibC6VpSSiUrHOq7r+IUfTK3uQmYjzGy1 HtYtbRw5lbAVUj/0ZON0MNUu1JJNBm9AmQN+HZ2Rxbfv3kFMyz3zq5oRH51NKJ+HMP3S q96aLIXiUAtSKuivfHkOioLnjDUIwDjITcyQ9mQ4TuvbWcVL7/VVRg5t7kdLscIGzIjT eeOF4qaP+ty/fzaPF3hnVD3kPYTIRj4C+pIEwaFMGx6KdwBkit34sRrIA7Z1ysvOsLcS ytDBWd8Xp1wWOMDTRx3smqgf8IeJJyPQO7J4CxlqK7IkXr+MVn6fYrnkDDIfWy3JiC5e mOgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2X1vIou6awLP68ymYDF7yr65t8k5DjnNt4QimIc3dqdYhkI6cX YZ3y0mt8dSM3FSWWHmmNW8GdpQEJ13m64QeRk0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vt6Wtc+yIeaAdlcKEBADW1AaGIgWPOLkjJqQQ1Diy/4/oZMSdzdt+NAd1ZQjZ+QABP89fesGKTtZm83PcunyrU= X-Received: by 2002:adf:ba48:: with SMTP id t8mr25523205wrg.329.1584909931018; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:45:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Aleksandar Markovic Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 21:45:12 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: deprecation of in-tree builds To: Peter Maydell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000707c5105a1779944" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4864:20::42f X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Paolo Bonzini , QEMU Developers , Aleksandar Markovic Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --000000000000707c5105a1779944 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 --000000000000707c5105a1779944 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:
> =C2=A0* we should clearly say what our plans are, with a
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0long warning if we can reasonably give longer warning
> =C2=A0* if there's anything that we would accidentally
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0be breaking with those plans, we should adjust the
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0plans 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 else= where - that seems to have more emphasis on potential adjustments, and the = obligatory condition that nothing breaks - I agree with the approach you sp= elled out, or, in other words, agree with introducing deprecation note.

I hope that we all perceive occasional differences in opinio= ns 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

--000000000000707c5105a1779944--