On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 12:33 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 1/31/19 11:02 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > I guess I just don't see a reason *not* to implement it. But if > > Cole doesn't want to go through with it that's fine, I can just > > post patches later myself :) > > My reason for objection was to not bog down the patch series with > essentially tangential discussions. If I added the patch here, and it > prompted a big discussion, it could block the whole series (this should > all be committed as a single unit so apps can key off a single > domaincapabilities field or libvirt version to determine if > -transitional support is in place) This is why I suggested earlier that it could be its own separate patch, to be either squashed into this one or dropped entirely based on feedback. > It's also kind of new territory to add a model that's essentially an > alias like pavel points out, which potentially deserves a wider > discussion, and buried in a big series isn't really the place IMO. Plus > I wanted to dig a bit into the archives to see why model=virtio-scsi > naming was chosen in the first place, maybe there was a specific > argument for that naming. > > All that said, I'm not opposed to the idea and it is on my list to look > into after this series is committed. It's just very much a side issue > here IMO Yeah, doing it as a follow-up works too, as long as we can squeeze everything into the same libvirt release if we decide to go for it. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
