From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH OSSTEST] Allow per-host TFTP setup Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:04:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1392401045.32038.346.camel@Solace> References: <1392214585-26602-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <21243.35358.349750.484725@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1392216804.13563.83.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4572503819344885818==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1392216804.13563.83.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============4572503819344885818== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WUfiYELeNHiv80VOHSAS" --=-WUfiYELeNHiv80VOHSAS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On mer, 2014-02-12 at 14:53 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 14:50 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST] Allow per-host TFTP setup"): > > > Make it possible to specify various bits of TFTP path via > > > ~/.xen-osstest/config > >=20 > > As I said in person: this would be much better if instead the host > > property referred to a named TFTP scope/server. Otherwise you have to > > set a whole bunch of host properties identically. > >=20 >=20 > Ack. I'll put this on my todo list. >=20 Also, the README file has a, far than comprehensive, list of host properties. I'm unsure whether that file is the proper place, but it would be nice to have one actual place where a list and a brief description of all the supported host properties could live. When I previously added or had to deal with some undocumented host properties, I added it in the README file, so I'd say do the same. If then README is not deemed as the proper place, fine, but I still would recommend putting the info somewhere... It's not different from what we require in Xen, of having actual patches updating the docs too, after all. What do you think? Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-WUfiYELeNHiv80VOHSAS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEABECAAYFAlL+WpUACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQROwCeILgQv2E/hk8sakC7WuCK44rk YTkAn1c+ut1x7g7DiSm79H6g8cRlf/Ae =8Mle -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WUfiYELeNHiv80VOHSAS-- --===============4572503819344885818== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============4572503819344885818==--