Re: [Libvir] [PATCH][RFC] libvirt ldoms support
John Levon wrote:
>> (I know I've whined before but it would be awfully nice
to have some-one
>> step up and update the schema: then it would be possible to insist all
>> such changes update the schema too.)
> Yes, but that doesn't excuse developing these extensions in private and then
> just dumping them on the list as a final solution.
That's hardly fair. There's a big 'RFC' in the subject and Ryan
explicitly said they weren't ready. Eunice has been responding to all
your comments. Who's been talking of "final solutions"?
To quote Eunice:
I don't think the first option (to change the LDoms Manager XML
format to be based on the libvirt XML format) is a feasible one
since LDoms has been released public and some tools/applications
are already based on the LDom Manager's XML interfaces.
How can that be interpreted as anything but 'final'? An RFC is not
about implementation details, it should be about the big picture.
Already shipping a supported product based on an XML format that
was not discussed upstream prior is about as final as it gets, IMO.
- Cole