Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > 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"?
1. Having to clean up the naming messes we made. This involves backward compatibility arguments and work-arounds. 2. Inertia. > Is there any compelling reason for keeping the current lax naming rules of > QOM? Can't think of any but avoiding 1. > 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?) I believe migration should not be affected, since migration section names are entirely separate. Mind, I'm no migration expert.
