On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 06:09:57PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:28:20PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > > I think we should specify some sane recommended values. There is a > > reason why minimum and recommended are kept separate. The doc might be > > vague but one thing is clear from it: Better have more resources than > > these minimum ones if possible. > > I could have said that with no doc ;) If we want to make guesses as your > 2x, maybe it's better done in applications, or in libvirt-designer, when > only minimal resources are defined, make some guesses for recommended ones? Yeah, I think libosinfo should really stick to reporting clear facts only. So if distros don't provide any "recommended" defaults we should leave them blank, so that users of libosinfo are clear that this info is not defined. The apps can use 2 x minimum if they so wish. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
