On 14/11/2023 08.41, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Cc: the other QOM maintainers
Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:43:42PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
We got rid of QOM type names containing ',' in 6.0, but some have
crept back in. Replace them just like we did in 6.0.
It is practical to add
assert(strchr(name, ',') == NULL)
to some place in QOM to stop them coming back yet again ?
This adds a naming rule to QOM. Right now, QOM has none whatsoever,
which I've long called out as a mistake.
I'm all for correcting that mistake, but I'd go further than just
outlawing ','.
What prevents us from fixing this "mistake"? Is there any compelling reason
for keeping the current lax naming rules of QOM? Would there be migration
issues if we'd rename the current offenders? (and even if so, couldn't we
simply fix that issue by curating an allowlist of old names?)
Thomas
