"Daniel P. Berrange" <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 06:15:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > I don't think we should tie removal of features to version numbers. IMHO > we should just increment the first major digit on a fixed time scale, > either once a year, or whenever we get past .9. > > For removal of features, IMHO, the only important thing is to give users > deprecation clear warning for 2-3 releases, and ensure feature detection > works well. As long as that is done, there shouldn't be any need to batch > them up for "major" releases. From libvirt POV, batching up removal to > major releases is not beneficial. Batching to major releases gives a very > inconsistent timeframe for removal too - somethign fdeprecated in .1 > release may live on for years, until the next $major.0, while something > deprecated in a .9 release can be killed in 4 months. I much prefer to > see a consistent deprecated for 2 releases / 8 months, then deleted > regardless of feature.
I concur.
