Hi Thomas, > This series introduces 5 different flavors of deprecation > messages: > > * "Too old" > * "Unmaintained" > * "The ZCU102 machine has the same features supported" > * "Use the \"pc\" machine instead" > * "Obsoleted by the \"40p\" machine" > > Can we clearly document guidelines and examples for values of > this field, to help ensure consistency? > > Examples of questions that could be answered in the field > documentation: > > * Should the message start with an uppercase letter? > * Should it really explain _why_ it was deprecated, or is a > simple "please use xlnx-zcu102 instead" good enough? > * Which of the following is preferred: > * "obsoleted by the \"pc\" machine" > * "obsoleted by \"pc\"" > * "use \"pc\" instead" > * "too old, use \"pc\" instead" > * "too old; use \"pc\" instead" > * <something else?>
Do you have any preference regarding Eduardo's suggestions? I see this pattern: - obsoleted by newer -> hint about replacement - too old, unmaintained (maybe suggest use an older version?) -> hint when removal is scheduled These are also valid for Devices. Now if we want a consistent guideline, I suggest we clearly document the deprecated machines/devices in qemu-doc.texi and extract this information at build time, like trace.h. At least this will force developers to document their deprecations.
