* [virtio-dev] Requesting ballots for #31 and #32
@ 2019-02-13 1:38 Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-02-13 2:04 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2019-02-13 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: virtio-dev; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 419 bytes --]
Hi,
I'd like to request ballots for the following issues:
"content: reserve virtio device ID for file system devices"
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/31
"virtio-blk: discard and write zeroes clarifications"
https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/32
At least #32 is needed for VIRTIO 1.1 but #31 is trivial and will
prevent device ID conflicts so I suggest merging it too.
Thank you,
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [virtio-dev] Re: Requesting ballots for #31 and #32
2019-02-13 1:38 [virtio-dev] Requesting ballots for #31 and #32 Stefan Hajnoczi
@ 2019-02-13 2:04 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-02-13 9:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2019-02-13 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: virtio-dev
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:38:13AM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to request ballots for the following issues:
>
> "content: reserve virtio device ID for file system devices"
> https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/31
>
> "virtio-blk: discard and write zeroes clarifications"
> https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/32
>
> At least #32 is needed for VIRTIO 1.1 but #31 is trivial and will
> prevent device ID conflicts so I suggest merging it too.
>
> Thank you,
> Stefan
Would you say that #32 is a material change or not?
"Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product that
that would require a compliant application or implementation to be
modified or rewritten in order to remain compliant or which adds new
features or otherwise expands the scope of the work product.
I think you indicated in the past that it isn't.
However I think #31 would be a new feature. If yes including it would not
qualify as non material change and that would force
another public review round.
Would you agree?
If doesn't seem worth forcing a public review for a trivial change.
--
MST
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [virtio-dev] Re: Requesting ballots for #31 and #32
2019-02-13 2:04 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2019-02-13 9:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2019-02-13 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: virtio-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:38:13AM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to request ballots for the following issues:
> >
> > "content: reserve virtio device ID for file system devices"
> > https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/31
> >
> > "virtio-blk: discard and write zeroes clarifications"
> > https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/32
> >
> > At least #32 is needed for VIRTIO 1.1 but #31 is trivial and will
> > prevent device ID conflicts so I suggest merging it too.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Stefan
>
> Would you say that #32 is a material change or not?
>
> "Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product that
> that would require a compliant application or implementation to be
> modified or rewritten in order to remain compliant or which adds new
> features or otherwise expands the scope of the work product.
>
> I think you indicated in the past that it isn't.
>
> However I think #31 would be a new feature. If yes including it would not
> qualify as non material change and that would force
> another public review round.
>
> Would you agree?
> If doesn't seem worth forcing a public review for a trivial change.
Yes, I agree on both counts.
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-13 9:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-13 1:38 [virtio-dev] Requesting ballots for #31 and #32 Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-02-13 2:04 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-02-13 9:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.