"Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> data/schemas/libosinfo.rng | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> index 735ced0..f35e439 100644
>> --- a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> +++ b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> @@ -212,6 +212,11 @@
>> </attribute>
>> </element>
>> </optional>
>> + <optional>
>> + <element name="is-snapshot">
>> + <empty/>
>> + </element>
>> + </optional>
>
> I don't think this info is loaded if element is empty. There is no
> point in adding it if thats the case and also if you are not adding
> the API to retrieve this info either. As I said in a related mail,
> this isn't as trivial as it sounds so unless you have time to fix this
> properly, I suggest we go with the solution I provided ('Add an
> optional 'snapshot' tag to OS entries') for now and you rebase your
> patches on top of that patch of mine.
>
> We can later change all these boolean elements later then to be less ugly.
since the change got in libosinfo, is the rest of the series correct? I
will submit again the rebased version.
Thanks,
Giuseppe
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
