On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:11:39 +0000, Peter Maydell
<peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 14:58, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that was the basic idea. Considering that the patch set hasn't
>> been going
>> in for another 2 months after that discussion indicates that this isn't
>> too much of
>> an issue though :).
>
> We might get there faster if people didn't keep nitpicking the APIs at
the
> last minute :-)
Exactly. We're trying hard to get the damned thing merged, and the
permanent API churn quickly becomes a burden.
My understanding was that a consensus was reached 2 months ago. Has
something fundamentally changed? Something that makes this API invalid? If
not, can we please keep this one?
Thanks,
M.
--
Who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
