On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 11:45 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > Documents some changes that have slipped through the cracks > > during the development cycle. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Changes from [v1]: > > > > * rebase on top of master > > * remove the part about guests no longer disappearing if the > > QEMU binary is missing, since Peter already documented that > > > > [v1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-September/msg00030.html > > > > docs/news.xml | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) > > Hrmph... Guess we have to get better at remembering this when we do > reviews as the last few release cycles there's been a need to update > news.xml appropriately at the last moment... Yeah, we haven't gotten as good at this as I hoped we would have by now. Even I forgot to update the release notes once during this development cycle! .-. > > + <change> > > + <summary> > > + qemu: Implement editing guest configuration for managed save files > > + </summary> > > + <description> > > + New <code>managedsave-define</code>, <code>managedsave-edit</code> > > + and <code>managedsave-dumpxml</code> commands have been added to > > + <code>virsh</code> to allow editing the guest configuration for > > + managed save files just like it was already possible for unmanaged > > + save files. > > + </description> > > + </change> > > FWIW: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-August/msg00953.html > > No one ACK'd it yet... The 1/2 of the v2 series was pushed from the v1 > posting, but v2 looks lost in the volume ;-( > > IDC how you decide to "handle" that - either apply Kothapally's change > or go with yours... I've dropped this hunk and pushed the author's version. > > + <change> > > + <summary> > > + apparmor: Update for QEMU 2.10 compatibility > > + </summary> > > + <description> > > + Starting with version 2.10, QEMU locks disk images and NVRAM files > > The way this reads it seems it could be libvirt 2.10... I'd go with > "QEMU 2.10" (although some will point out it's possible to backport > things into earlier versions)... I don't think there's much room for confusion, but there's also no harm in being explicit :) > > + <change> > > + <summary> > > + daemon: Fix <code>--verbose</code> option > > Should we state for all the daemon's fixed? Looks very strange naked > like this unless you know "daemon" means more than one place. Fair enough, I hadn't realized that myself :) I changed the structure quite a bit, hopefully it's not a complete trainwreck. > Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> Pushed now, thanks for the review. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
