On 05/06/2010 10:52 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony, no reply from you; did it fall through the cracks? If you're
fine with my draft, I'll turn it into a proper patch.
Yes, sorry, I thought I had already responded as such.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Markus Armbruster writes:
Anthony, no reply from you; did it fall through the cracks? If you're
fine with my draft, I'll turn it into a proper patch.
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Anthony asked me to take a stab at rewriting his draft to something more
> along the lines of what I'm thinking. Here goes. I put some remar
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:00:25 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony asked me to take a stab at rewriting his draft to something more
> along the lines of what I'm thinking. Here goes. I put some remarks
> [in brackets].
I don't have strong opinions on the differences, so this look ok to me.
Anthony asked me to take a stab at rewriting his draft to something more
along the lines of what I'm thinking. Here goes. I put some remarks
[in brackets].
FYI, I'll be out of town until Wednesday.
6. Downstream extension of QMP
--
We recommend that downstream cons
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 02/19/2010 07:04 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori writes:
>>
>>
>>> We need a bit more than just this. Here's my suggestion:
>>>
>> I think this is much more restrictive than necessary. Unnecessarily
>> restrictive rules are more likely to
On 02/19/2010 07:04 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
We need a bit more than just this. Here's my suggestion:
I think this is much more restrictive than necessary. Unnecessarily
restrictive rules are more likely to be ignored, and we don't want that.
Details be
Anthony Liguori writes:
> We need a bit more than just this. Here's my suggestion:
I think this is much more restrictive than necessary. Unnecessarily
restrictive rules are more likely to be ignored, and we don't want that.
Details below.
> 6. Downstream modification of QMP
>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:54:04 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 02:24 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > Vendors might want to add their own extensions to QMP, as JSON itself
> > (and several other protocols) allow this someway, I think QMP should
> > allow too.
> >
> > We just have to choo
On 02/18/2010 02:24 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Vendors might want to add their own extensions to QMP, as JSON itself
(and several other protocols) allow this someway, I think QMP should
allow too.
We just have to choose a naming convention that is guaranteed not to
clash with any future new comm
Vendors might want to add their own extensions to QMP, as JSON itself
(and several other protocols) allow this someway, I think QMP should
allow too.
We just have to choose a naming convention that is guaranteed not to
clash with any future new commands, arguments, parameters and event
names.
Si
10 matches
Mail list logo
