On 10/05/2017 16:47, Thomas Huth wrote: >> So while we can delete pc-0.12, we can't delete associated features needed >> by pc-0.12, without complicating RHEL's ability to create its back-compat >> machine types. Downstream would have to un-delete the features. > > So I guess this is why Paolo said that pc-0.12 is still in "use" ... I > think removing pc-0.12, but not removing rombar=0 will cause confusion > in the upstream code base sooner or later,
I agree. > so I guess we should rather > keep the pc-0.12 machine until we can get rid of it together with the > rombar code. We should still mark it as deprecated, of course. > >> I think tieing removal to major versions is a mistake, unless we're >> going to set a fixed timeframe for delivery of major versions. ie if >> we gaurantee that we'll ship a new major version every 18 months, that >> gives people a predictable lifetime. If we carry on inventing reasons >> for major versions at arbitrary points in time, it makes it difficult >> to have any reasonable forward planning. It is more users friendly if >> we can set a clear fixed timeframe for machine type lifecycle / eol > > IMHO we should have a new major release after we've reached a .9 minor > release, but so far it seems like I'm the only one with that wish... I actually like that, but then you've pretty much guaranteed that you _cannot_ remove anything deprecated until 4.0. You and Daniel aren't disagreeing as heavily as it seems, I think. Paolo
