On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Agreed. I didn't realize that my patch is making a policy decision, which is usually better to keep in apps. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
