On 10.08.2015 14:58, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:34:20PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: >> V1 introduced quite a big refactor, so to be able to better keep track >> of changes performed from v1 to v2, only this v2 diff patch is presented >> and eventually will be squashed to the previous series with a different >> commit message. >> --- >> >> You can still checkout the forked repo >> https://github.com/eskultety/libvirt/tree/virt-shell >> >> cfg.mk | 2 +- >> tools/virsh-domain-monitor.c | 3 +- >> tools/virsh-domain.c | 668 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> tools/virsh-domain.h | 3 +- >> tools/virsh-edit.c | 8 +- >> tools/virsh-interface.c | 42 +-- >> tools/virsh-interface.h | 2 +- >> tools/virsh-network.c | 76 ++--- >> tools/virsh-network.h | 2 +- >> tools/virsh-nodedev.c | 38 +-- >> tools/virsh-nwfilter.c | 34 +-- >> tools/virsh-nwfilter.h | 2 +- >> tools/virsh-pool.c | 66 ++--- >> tools/virsh-pool.h | 2 +- >> tools/virsh-secret.c | 28 +- >> tools/virsh-snapshot.c | 94 +++--- >> tools/virsh-volume.c | 52 ++-- >> tools/virsh-volume.h | 2 +- >> tools/virsh.c | 339 +--------------------- >> tools/virsh.h | 25 +- >> tools/vsh.c | 559 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> tools/vsh.h | 32 ++- >> 22 files changed, 1062 insertions(+), 1017 deletions(-) >> > I seriously hope we're not getting any other issues because of this > patch(set) because finding a problem in it in the future terrible, but > splitting it now into multiple patches doesn't seem worth it to me. > I would like another opinion, though. My opinion is that we should > fix this one last thing I mentioned above and squash it in a patch we > push this week since it's still early after a release. Agreed. The sooner we push this the better. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list