Peter Xu <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 11:35:06AM +0000, Paweł Zmarzły wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 at 21:42, Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Now I start to question whether I should have that other fix of yours to be >> > for this release or next. >> > >> > If this use case is completely broken, we shouldn't need to rush -rc >> > window, now I plan to merge all these fixes later when 11.0 dev window >> > opens. Let me know if you, or Fabiano, has any comments. >> >> It is broken if you set ignore-shared and actually have any shared >> block, but what could work today is if you just toggle the >> ignore-shared flag on without setting up any shared blocks. In that >> case, writing will work fine, but reading will crash. That's how I > > Yep, I suppose either side of reliable failure means it's completely > broken. :( > > That's IMHO an important evaluation because we could modify the image > layout without worrying breaking others only if it's completely broken.. > >> stumbled upon this rabbithole in the first place: I forgot to unset >> the flag and was surprised by parsing error. Whether it is worth >> fixing now - I don't know, setting ignore-shared when there are no >> shared blocks doesn't really make sense, so most likely nobody does it >> on purpose. >> >> In either case, I need to stop working on this for now, I thought this >> will be a tiny side project that'll help me get my first patches in >> (and get used to collaborating over email), but now it's growing in >> complexity and I have other things that I need to prioritize. >> Hopefully I'll come back to this within 11.x window. Thanks for all >> the help so far, Peter, Fabiano! > > Don't worry, thanks for all the contributions even so far! > > Your patch actually looks pretty good already and mergeable, I just > nitpicked things here and there as I want to double check on things I > stated, and make it slow to get thoroughly discussed. > > Personally, I think it's ok we queue this one already into -next together > with the other one, then we clean things on top. > > Fabiano, sounds good to you? PS: take your time reading, as long as you > agree we put it in -next only, then there's no rush. :)
Yep, that's fine. > > Thanks,
