> On 9 Oct 2015, at 11:08, Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 10:57 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote: >> >> >>>> I could also include qemu-traditional into (3), which I have not >>>> counted >>>> in the past. So I was thinking I'd not do this. >>> >>> qemu-traditional doesn't get much traffic, but I don't see a reason to >>> exclude it. The separation/change you are proposing here sounds like an >>> ideal point to reintroduce it where it wasn't included before. >> >> That's what I was thinking and why I left it out > > I was proposing leaving it in based on that reasoning though. > > (did you mean this to be below the comment about upstream?).
Correct Lars _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
