On 5/13/22 9:28 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 5/12/22 19:09, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> Hello Michal,
>>
>> this seems to be going backwards to special case arguments instead of
>> putting them into typed parameters.
>> I do not understand where this need comes from, but it does not seem a good
On 5/12/22 19:09, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hello Michal,
>
> this seems to be going backwards to special case arguments instead of putting
> them into typed parameters.
> I do not understand where this need comes from, but it does not seem a good
> direction to me.
The need stems from my testin
Hello Michal,
this seems to be going backwards to special case arguments instead of putting
them into typed parameters.
I do not understand where this need comes from, but it does not seem a good
direction to me.
Thanks,
Claudio
On 5/12/22 5:17 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> After seeing previ
On 5/12/22 17:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 05:17:37PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> After seeing previous commit one might think that
>> virDomainRestoreParams() would get the similar treatment. Well,
>> it can't. The problem here is: without any indication what domai
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 05:17:37PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> After seeing previous commit one might think that
> virDomainRestoreParams() would get the similar treatment. Well,
> it can't. The problem here is: without any indication what domain
> to restore we don't really know what domain t
After seeing previous commit one might think that
virDomainRestoreParams() would get the similar treatment. Well,
it can't. The problem here is: without any indication what domain
to restore we don't really know what domain to restore (shocking,
right?). Therefore, we have to require path to restor
