On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 04:03:54PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > > On 04-Jul-2023, at 11:09 AM, Ani Sinha <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 04-Jul-2023, at 10:31 AM, Akihiko Odaki <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 2023/07/03 15:08, Ani Sinha wrote: > >>>> On 02-Jul-2023, at 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> 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. -- MST
