Re: [PATCH 1/9] qapi: New special feature flag "unstable"

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:15:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:37:19AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Kevin Wolf <kwolf@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 of external interfaces so named may be withdrawn or changed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@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.
> >
> > We will sometimes ignore/forget the feature flag too though, so I'm
> > not convinced there's much difference there.
> 
> -compat unstable-input=reject,unstable-output=hide should help you stay
> on the straight & narrow :)

That's from the pov of the mgmt app. I meant from the POV of QEMU
maintainers forgetting to add "unstable" flag, just as they might
forget to add a "x-" prefix.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|