On 02/03/17 17:55, Ian Jackson wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] golang/xenlight: Add tests host > related functionality functions"): >> On 02/03/17 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> I assume this whole series is RFC still ? >> >> I think the earlier patches looked pretty close to being checked in. I >> think having a basic chunk of functionality checked in will make it >> easier to actually collaborate on improving things. > > There is a lot of hand-crafted code here, whose semantics (eg, lists > of enum values and fields) which is copied from the libxl idl. > > What this means is that the golang code may stop building, or (worse) > start to produce broken results, when the idl is updated.
Right. The purpose of hand-crafting the code was to get a feel for what a good Go-like output would look like before investing in the IDL. It sounds like you're suggesting that having IDL support would be a prerequisite to getting anything checked in? I'd definitely say havind IDL support would be a prerequisite for declaring the bindings "supported". I don't think the structures for these functions change so often that it would be a hardship for Ronald or I to change them whenever they broke; and so I would argue it shouldn't be a blocker for getting things into the tree if the code looks good. But in the end it's your & Wei's call. :-) -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel