Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2] news: Prepare for 3.7.0 release
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(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> 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(a)redhat.com>
Pushed now, thanks for the review.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization