Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> 04/12/16 4:38 PM >>>
>On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
><konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> options (1-4) seem perfectly fine to me.  FWIW my preferred color
>> would probably be 1 because it's the easiest and least inconsistent
>> with the current state of things. My least favorite would be 3,
>> because although each individual piece of information is only in one
>> place, the path to get there is duplicated; both the kernel developer
>> and the hypervisor developer are forced to continue to deal with both.
>
> The state is that 1-3 have been Nacked by Andrew, 4 has been
> Nacked by Jan. And 5) (the original way) was way way back Nacked
> as well.

No, I only withdrew my ack. Hence an ack from another REST maintainer
would suffice for it to stay in as it is now.

>There's a difference between "I think this other way is better" and "I
>am absolutely opposed to this".
>
>Well we know which option Andy prefers, but are there other options
>that Andy is not absolutely opposed to?  And we don't know anything
>about which option Jan prefers at all, except that it's not #4.

 As said in another reply - a suitable variant of 2.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel