On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 16:42 +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 22.08.19 13:32, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:29:55PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > On 14.08.19 22:22, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevi...@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > block/crypto.c | 16 ++++++
> > > > block/crypto.h | 3 +
> > > > qemu-img-cmds.hx | 13 +++++
> > > > qemu-img.c | 140 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 4 files changed, 172 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > Yes, this seems a bit weird. Putting it under amend seems like the
> > > natural thing if that works; if not, I think it should be a single
> > > qemu-img subcommand instead of two.
> >
> > I'm not convinced by overloading two distinct operations on to one
> > sub-command - doesn't seem to give an obvious benefit to overload
> > them & IME experiance overloading results in harder to understand
> > commands due to having distinct args to each command.
>
> Because it suits the qemu-img interface we currently have. For example,
> we have a single subcommand for internal snapshot management (“qemu-img
> snapshot”), so I think it makes sense to have a single subcommand for
> encrypted image management.
I personally don't care, other that I do thing that the best here is to use
the amend interface.
>
> Max
>
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
