> On 04-Jul-2023, at 4:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 04:03:54PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 04-Jul-2023, at 11:09 AM, Ani Sinha <anisi...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 04-Jul-2023, at 10:31 AM, Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/07/03 15:08, Ani Sinha wrote:
>>>>>> On 02-Jul-2023, at 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 04:09:31PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I want the slot number restriction to be enforced. If it worries
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> too much for regressions, you may implement it as a warning first and
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> turn it a hard error when the next development phase starts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a bad idea.
>>>>> If we had not enforced the check strongly, the tests that we fixed would
>>>>> not get noticed.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps so, but we don't have much time before feature freeze. I rather
>>>> want to see the check implemented as warning in 8.1 instead of delaying
>>>> the initial implementation of the check after 8.1 (though I worry if it's
>>>> already too late for 8.1.)
>>>
>>> The feature hard freeze window starts from 12th of next week. So I am still
>>> debating whether to keep the hard check or just have a warning. If the hard
>>> check causes regressions, we can always revert it to a warning later.
>>
>> mst?
>
> I'd go for a warning now. Let's see what triggers for users without
> actually breaking things too badly for them.
🤦🏻
