Thanks for summarizing the discussion!
If you are taking over Fam's series, please squash in your patches to
make review easier.
Maybe the names can be improved:
"allow-partial" is not self-explanatory.
"sync-cancel" is misleading since successful completion is affected too,
not just
On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow writes:
>
>> On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
argument for
So here's the current status of this blob:
- Markus supports the idea of a transaction-wide property, but hasn't
reviewed this particular RFC.
- Eric seemed supportive of a transaction-wide property, but hasn't
chimed in to this thread yet.
- Stefan was not sure what this patch was trying to
A little bit of cross-talk with my "state of the union" reply and this
review from Eric.
Sorry, everyone!
On 10/20/2015 04:12 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/24/2015 03:40 PM, John Snow wrote:
>> This replaces the per-action property as in Fam's series.
>> Instead, we have a transaction-wide
John Snow writes:
> On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
>>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :)
>>>
>>> This patch may
On Mon, 10/19 09:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow writes:
>
> > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
> >>> argument for
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :)
>
> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can
> re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very
On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :)
>>
>> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes
Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
argument for transactions that start block jobs? :)
This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can
re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments,
when the QAPI dust settles.
--js
On