On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:13PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 12/07/2015 06:49 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> >> On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >>> The current code was a little bit odd.
> >> Understatement of the Week
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:13PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 12/07/2015 06:49 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> >>On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >>>The current code was a little bit odd.
> >>Understatement of the Week :-)
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:37:53AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:13PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> > On 12/07/2015 06:49 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> > >>On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >
On 12/07/2015 06:49 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
The current code was a little bit odd.
Understatement of the Week :-) (also you get bonus points for being polite!)
At first we've removed all
On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
The current code was a little bit odd.
Understatement of the Week :-) (also you get bonus points for being polite!)
At first we've removed all
possible implicit input devices from domain definition to add them later
back if there was any graphics
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 12/04/2015 02:30 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > The current code was a little bit odd.
>
> Understatement of the Week :-) (also you get bonus points for being polite!)
>
> > At first we've removed all
> > possible implicit input
The current code was a little bit odd. At first we've removed all
possible implicit input devices from domain definition to add them later
back if there was any graphics device defined while parsing XML
description. That's not all, while formating domain definition to XML
description we at first