On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/2016 10:23, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/10/2016 19:46, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>> I don't think we have a plan, but I would
On 11/10/2016 10:23, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/2016 19:46, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> I don't think we have a plan, but I would support deprecating and
>>> removing very old machine-types. The question is: how old
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 10/10/2016 19:46, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > I don't think we have a plan, but I would support deprecating and
> > removing very old machine-types. The question is: how old is too
> > old?
> >
> > For reference, the commits
On 10/10/2016 19:46, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> I don't think we have a plan, but I would support deprecating and
> removing very old machine-types. The question is: how old is too
> old?
>
> For reference, the commits and dates when each machine-type was
> added are below:
>
> machine commit
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:55:25PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
[...]
> pc-0.10 seems to be the first machine type ever (2009), is there already
> a plan to deprecate it?
I don't think we have a plan, but I would support deprecating and
removing very old machine-types. The question is: how old is
