уто, 26. мај 2020. у 15:04 Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@xxxxxxxxx> је написао/ла: > > уто, 26. мај 2020. у 14:50 Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx> је написао/ла: > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 14:37:41 +0200, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +mips ``fulong2e`` machine (since 5.1) > > > > > +''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > > + > > > > > +This machine has been renamed ``fuloong2e``. > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Libvirt doesn't have any special handling for this machine so this > > > > shouldn't impact us. > > > > > > > > > > Well, Peter, > > > > > > I was also wondering libvirt listed as a recipient, and I think it > > > creates unneeded noise in your group, but Philippe uses some his > > > system for automatic picking of recipients, and libivrt somehow > > > appears there during that process. Philippe, either correct that > > > detail in this particular component of your workflow, or change > > > entirely your system for recipient choice - the current workflow > > > creates incredible amount of noise, wasting time of many people. > > > > Note that my message above was not a criticism of why we've got it but > > more of a review. This review though it just that removing this is okay > > and no action needs to be taken. Unfortunately I'm usually not familiar > > enough with qemu to do a full review. > > > > > > > > This happened before in case of deprecating an ancient mips machine, > > > that absolutely doesn't have anything to do with linvirt. > > > > In some cases it might seem like that. Specifically for things where > > libvirt isn't impacted such as machine type change because we try to > > stay machine type agnostic or for something that we don't use. > > > > On the other hand there were plenty cases where we were impacted and > > where we do want to know about these deprecations. It's in fact the > > primary reason why this was established after an agreement between qemu > > and libvirt projects and in fact I was one of those who argued for > > adding such a thing. > > > > As I was one of the proponents I feel obliged to always respond to these > > notifications as we've more than once encountered something that in the > > end impacted libvirt. > > But, Peter Krempa, I see libvirt-dev listed as a recipient for a patch (from this series) that changes an e-mail of a colleague of mine. Why would be libvirt-dev be interested in that? Is libvirt really so sensitive to the degree that to be afraid that changing an e-mail of a QEMU contributor would impact libvirt design and/or its interface towards QEMU? If you wishes that to remain so, I am of course fine with it, who am I to determine that, but it looks like a severe overkill to me. Best Regards, Aleksandar > > Glad to know that you guy have clear division of responsibility between members. > > Good to know the background of all this. > > Thanks you, > Aleksandar > > > Please do keep sending these to libvirt. It's appreciated to know that > > something is going to change! In some cases we don't get a notification > > (such as in the recent QAPIfication of netdev-add where non-well-formed > > string stopped to be accepted by qemu) and then we have to figure out > > only after it trickles down to users. > >
