On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:01:23AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 01/06/2015 09:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > I don't feel overly strongly about it; just "mechanism, not policy" > > > looks like a good tradition (well, good excuse anyway). > > > > Most users never see warnings. We ship it, we support it. > > If we don't want to support it, let's not ship it. > > Then we should rm -rf half of QEMU. :) > > Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with not baking policy into QEMU. A > lot of QEMU command-line hacking really is just a shortcut to avoid > continuous recompilation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that > it constitutes a stable API. > > Paolo
Still, reserving part of the namespace for QEMU internal use is *not* policy, it's just good engineering. How about we forbid adding files under "etc/" ? That would be enough to avoid conflicts. -- MST
