On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "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?
If I'm looking at the right patches, yes.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
