On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:19:47PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > John Levon wrote: > >>> (I know I've whined before but it would be awfully nice to have some-one > >>> step up and update the schema: then it would be possible to insist all > >>> such changes update the schema too.) > >> Yes, but that doesn't excuse developing these extensions in private and then > >> just dumping them on the list as a final solution. > > > > That's hardly fair. There's a big 'RFC' in the subject and Ryan > > explicitly said they weren't ready. Eunice has been responding to all > > your comments. Who's been talking of "final solutions"? > > > > To quote Eunice: > > > I don't think the first option (to change the LDoms Manager XML > > format to be based on the libvirt XML format) is a feasible one > > since LDoms has been released public and some tools/applications > > are already based on the LDom Manager's XML interfaces. > > How can that be interpreted as anything but 'final'? An RFC is not > about implementation details, it should be about the big picture. > Already shipping a supported product based on an XML format that > was not discussed upstream prior is about as final as it gets, IMO. Yes, that's exactly the point I was attempting to make. The fact that there is a shipped LDoms 'libvirt' release is a huge problem, because it has now diluted the value of libvirt, because it is not compatible with the official libvirt. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list