On 01/13/16 12:11, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > On 01/13/2016 01:37 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> meta comment here: >> >> On 01/12/16 16:47, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> >>> P.S. Here is a summary that my colleague has receiver from libvirt >>> list. >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: Snapshotting OVMF guests >>> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:56:29 +0100 >>> From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >>> To: Dmitry Andreev <dandr...@virtuozzo.com> >>> CC: Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster >>> <arm...@redhat.com> >>> >>> Hello Dmitry, >>> >>> [...] >> Your colleague Dmitry did not receive this from the libvirt list. He >> received the from me in private. See the headers above. >> >> Please do not publicize a private exchange without asking for permission >> first. >> >> In the present case I don't mind it. I stand by everything I said, and I >> would have written mostly the same if I had been contacted publicly, >> on-list. >> >> But if you contact me in private *first*, then I expect the discussion >> to remain private. If you want to forward the email to a public list, >> please ask for permission. Otherwise I might consider it more prudent >> for myself to answer all private queries with just "please ask me this >> on the list instead". >> >> I appreciate that you guys are working on this, but let's handle emails >> sensibly. >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo >> > Sorry :( I have not properly checked the message :( > > I am guilty..
No prob, it's just that I've burned myself a few times before, hence I've grown to double check the address list when receiving & sending email. "List address not present" implies "other guy wants it to be private" to me. :) Cheers Laszlo