On Wed 21 Oct 2015 10:57:32 AM CEST, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > blockdev-add is a big & hairy feature that has taken considerable time > to develop, spanning multiple releases, and still isn't quite done > (never been closer, though). As such, it's a textbook example of an > experimental interface, and should have been x-blockdev-add. We > messed that up, and it's probably not worth renaming now. > > Quite a few users have been trying to use blockdev-add, and ran into > roadblocks sooner or later. Inevitable, given its incomplete state. > Perhaps an x- prefix providing fair warning would've saved them > trouble, but that's water under the bridge now. We tried to warn them > off with scary documentation instead (commit da2cf4e). > > Naturally, running into an obvious roadblock early is less bad than > running into a subtle one late. The lack of blockdev-del has served > as an obvious early one. > > Mind, that's not an objection to implementing it now. I think the > time's ripe, actually. I just want us to try to erect a proper > warning sign where the "no blockdev-del" roadblock used to be. Naming > it x-blockdev-del together with a note explaining why it's > experimental should do the trick.
That works for me, I can rename it in my next submission and add the appropriate warnings. Berto
