Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 3.0 ?

[Thomas Huth]

On 23.11.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 23.11.2017 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 23 November 2017 at 10:03, Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:28 +0100
>>>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> 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 still don't think that we need a big plan for this... The change from
>> 1.7 to 2.0 was also rather arbitrary, wasn't it?
>>
>> Anyway, I've now started a Wiki page to collect ideas:
>>
>>  https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Version3.0
>>
>> Maybe we can jump to version 3.0 if there are enough doable items on the
>> list that we can all agree upon.
> 
> From the mgmt app / libvirt POV, I'm against the idea of doing such an
> API incompatible release associated with major versions. The whole point
> of the documented deprecation timeframe, was that we can incrementally
> remove legacy interfaces without having a big bang break the whole
> world.

Yes, I agree ... that's why I tried to split the list into a "doable"
part (which hopefully does not mean any breakage for the upper stack),
and a "controversial" part (which we could use for collecting ideas, but
it is likely not feasible to do it any time soon). Sorry for not stating
this more clearly.

 Thomas