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 Thu, 09/24 17:40, John Snow wrote:
> This replaces the per-action property as in Fam's series.
> Instead, we have a transaction-wide property that is shared
> with each action.
>
> At the action level, if a property supplied transaction-wide
> is disagreeable, we return error and the
On 10/20/2015 03:26 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 09/24 17:40, John Snow wrote:
>> This replaces the per-action property as in Fam's series.
>> Instead, we have a transaction-wide property that is shared
>> with each action.
>>
>> At the action level, if a property supplied transaction-wide
>>
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
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 property that is shared
> with each action.
>
> At the action level, if a property supplied transaction-wide
> is disagreeable, we return error and the
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
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
This replaces the per-action property as in Fam's series.
Instead, we have a transaction-wide property that is shared
with each action.
At the action level, if a property supplied transaction-wide
is disagreeable, we return error and the transaction is aborted.
RFC:
Where this makes sense: Any
