On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> And all that data is completely irrelevant for the reason I mentioned >> again and again. > > Now that we have the data, and that it goes your way, yes you can say > it's irrelevant ;) Not at all, I didn't even care to see if it goes "my way" or not. It's completely irrelevant and I'm getting tired of pointing out the very obvious reason why that is the case. > What if instead, it turned out only f22 was shipping a > new enough libvirt? I would have reverted your patch and added some > #ifdef. That would have been fine by me, as already explained. What it did boil down in the end to was you being way too caring about downstream than me and hence ugly solutions are acceptable to you. I really don't see us able to change each other's mind on that and hence the reason I wanted a vote rather in the first place to avoid this discussion. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ________________________________________ Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list