Re: [PATCH 4/4] qapi: introduce CONFIG_READ event

[Markus Armbruster]

"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dave@treblig.org> writes:

> Using x- for events makes sense to me; the semantics of events can be
> quite subtle; often you don't find out how broken they are until you
> wire them through libvirt and up the stack; so it's not impossible
> you might need to change it - but then without the x- the semantics
> (rather than existence) of the event is carved in stone.

It is carved in stone unless feature 'unstable' is declared.  The name
gets no vote.

We may elect to name unstable QAPI things 'x-FOO' to help humans.

[...]