On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:17:48AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100 > > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> By the way, before everybody now introduces "2.12" machine types ... is > >> there already a consensus that the next version will be "2.12" ? > >> > >> A couple of months ago, we discussed that we could maybe do a 3.0 after > >> 2.11, e.g. here: > >> > >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05056.html > >> > >> I'd still like to see that happen... Peter, any thoughts on this? > > > > So, as I just thought about preparing the new machine for s390x as > > well: Did we reach any consensus about what the next qemu version will > > be called? > > I haven't seen any sufficiently solid plan to make me want to > pick anything except "2.12".
I would suggest we just make major version number changes explicitly an arbitrary choice. ie just bump the major version for the first release of each year. Or just always bump it when we get to x.5 o x.9. We have a planned deprecation process for making incompatible changes at an arbitrary time, with no need to batch it up in a "big bang" break the whole world release. This kind of incremental change is much preferred from libvirt POV, as adapting to a huge pile of changes at the same time is a much bigger burden to deal with. 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 :|
