Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:59:43AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Mar
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Markus,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 202
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:59:43AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Marc-An
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Marc-André Lureau writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi Markus,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster
> >> >
On 02/11/20 09:44, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Reverting the feature requires rough consensus and a patch.
>>>
>>> I can provide a patch, but let's give everybody a chance to object
>>> first.
> Daniel, do you object, yes or no?
I think we should keep the patch, especially since you have cleaned
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>>
>> > Hi Markus,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feat
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
> >> introduced in 5.1 should have been
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 29/10/20 14:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
>> introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
>> the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy and incomplete, and the
>> test cov
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi Markus,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
>> introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
>> the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy
On 29/10/20 14:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
> introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
> the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy and incomplete, and the
> test coverage insufficient. Review fa
Hi Markus,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
> introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
> the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy and incomplete, and the
> test covera
In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy and incomplete, and the
test coverage insufficient. Review fail.
Fixing the parts we can still fix now is regret
12 matches
Mail list logo