On 11.01.19 15:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 11.01.2019 um 14:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 10.01.19 12:41, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>>> I
Am 11.01.2019 um 14:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 10.01.19 12:41, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> >>> On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>>
> > Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via
On 10.01.19 12:41, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
>>> On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>
> Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
> human-monitor-command, since there is no
On 09.01.19 18:52, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Actually, to me what you're saying sounds more like "Our deprecation
>> policy is useless" to which I wholeheartedly agree. I think we should
>> only remove things in major releases, and only if it was depreca
Am 10.01.2019 um 19:22 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 1/10/19 11:06 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>
> >>> savevm [-t] [-i] [tag|id]
> >>>
> >>> then:
> >>> a) with neither -t or -i it would behave in the same roulette way
> >>> as it does in the moment, and it might be a tag or id
>
On 1/10/19 11:06 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> savevm [-t] [-i] [tag|id]
>>>
>>> then:
>>> a) with neither -t or -i it would behave in the same roulette way
>>> as it does in the moment, and it might be a tag or id
>>>
>>> b) with -t we'd explicitly treat the parameter as a tag a
* Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Am 10.01.2019 um 12:41 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben:
> > * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > > > On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Indeed, and libvirt IS using
Am 10.01.2019 um 12:41 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben:
> * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > > On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
> > > >> human-monitor-c
On 1/10/19 9:41 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
human-monitor-command, since there is no QMP counterpart
* Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >
> > >> Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
> > >> human-monitor-command, since there is no QMP counterpart for internal
> > >> snapshot. Ev
Am 09.01.2019 um 20:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> >> Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
> >> human-monitor-command, since there is no QMP counterpart for internal
> >> snapshot. Even though lately we consistently tell people that i
Am 09.01.2019 um 18:52 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, to me what you're saying sounds more like "Our deprecation
> > policy is useless" to which I wholeheartedly agree.
If you restrict it to "Our deprecation policy is useless for user-
On 1/9/19 12:51 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's
>> human-monitor-command, since there is no QMP counterpart for internal
>> snapshot. Even though lately we consistently tell people that internal
>> snapshots are underdeveloped and you should use ex
Am 09.01.2019 um 18:55 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>
> > I do think it affects users of HMP, because right now you can delete
> > snapshots with their ID, and after this series you cannot.
>
>
> >> This. Is. HMP.
> >>
> >> Not a stable ABI, no d
On 1/9/19 12:21 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
- made changes in
On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> I do think it affects users of HMP, because right now you can delete
> snapshots with their ID, and after this series you cannot.
>> This. Is. HMP.
>>
>> Not a stable ABI, no deprecation period of two releases.
>
> Well, if you want to do it.
>
On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>
> Actually, to me what you're saying sounds more like "Our deprecation
> policy is useless" to which I wholeheartedly agree. I think we should
> only remove things in major releases, and only if it was deprecated in
> the previous major release already.
On 09.01.19 18:20, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 18:05 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19 17:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/9/19 12:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> changes in v2:
> - removed the "RFC" marker
On 1/9/19 3:05 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 09.01.19 17:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 1/9/19 12:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_n
Am 09.01.2019 um 18:05 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 09.01.19 17:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/9/19 12:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> >> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >>> changes in v2:
> >>> - removed the "RFC" marker;
> >>> - added a new patch (patch 2)
On 1/9/19 10:57 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>> I think we had a short discussion about just disallowing numeric
>> snapshot names. How bad would that be?
>
>
> This was my first idea when evaluating what to do in this case. I gave
> it up because
> I found it to be too extreme. People wo
On 09.01.19 17:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/19 12:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>> changes in v2:
>>> - removed the "RFC" marker;
>>> - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
>>> bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
On 09.01.19 17:45, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 17:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19 16:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19
On 1/9/19 12:10 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
- made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo;
- previous patch set
Am 09.01.2019 um 17:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 09.01.19 16:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.
On 09.01.19 16:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 06.09.18
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> > Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> >> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> >>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 06.09.18 13:11, Dani
* Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> > On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> > >> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > >>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >
Am 09.01.2019 um 15:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
On 09.01.19 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> changes in v2:
> - removed the "RFC" marker;
>
Am 09.01.2019 um 15:27 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >>> changes in v2:
> >>> - removed the "RFC" marker;
> >>> - added a new patch (patch 2) that remov
On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>> changes in v2:
>>> - removed the "RFC" marker;
>>> - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
>>> bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
>>> -
Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > changes in v2:
> > - removed the "RFC" marker;
> > - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
> > bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
> > - made changes in patch 1 as suggested by
On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> changes in v2:
> - removed the "RFC" marker;
> - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
> bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
> - made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo;
> - previous patch set link:
> https://lists.gnu.org/
Cc: libvir-list for review of the compatibility argument below.
Daniel Henrique Barboza writes:
> Hey David,
>
> On 9/21/18 9:29 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Daniel Henrique Barboza (danielhb...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> changes in v2:
>>> - removed the "RFC" marker;
>>> - added a new patc
ping
On 9/6/18 8:11 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
- made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo;
- previous patch set link:
https://lists.gnu.org/archiv
Hey David,
On 9/21/18 9:29 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Daniel Henrique Barboza (danielhb...@gmail.com) wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
- made changes in patch 1 as suggested by
* Daniel Henrique Barboza (danielhb...@gmail.com) wrote:
> changes in v2:
> - removed the "RFC" marker;
> - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
> bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
> - made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo;
> - previous patch set link:
> https://lists.g
changes in v2:
- removed the "RFC" marker;
- added a new patch (patch 2) that removes
bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code;
- made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo;
- previous patch set link:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-08/msg04658.html
It is not uncomm
39 matches
Mail list logo
