Re: [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 04/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/04/14 18:49, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/04/14 11:42, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 19:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Some design decisions have been take very deliberately (e.g. splitting the
>>>>> logic for PV and hvm migration) while others have been more along the lines of
>>>>> "I think its a sensible thing to do given a lack of any evidence/opinion to
>>>>> the contrary".
>>>> Is there some indication of which is which?
>>> Not really, given the clean rewrite, and also that it is only partially
>>> complete.
>>>
>>>> Should we check in the desigh/spec which was previously posted as part
>>>> of this?
>>> I knew I forgot something...
>>>
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/domain-save-format-E.pdf
>>
>> What did you imagine might constitute an "Optional" record?
>>
>
> I did not opt for optional records, nor did I author them into the
> spec.

So sometimes tone is hard to read in an e-mail; your tone here seems a 
bit defensive, or at least rather strident; which seemed strange to me, 
but when I looked back at what I wrote, I realized that it could be read 
with a more sarcastic / biting tone than I intended.

So, I don't know if you read it that way, but if you did, sorry about 
the misunderstanding; I was just being curious.  :-)

And if you didn't mean your tone to be strident, or it was strident for 
some other reason, nevermind. :-)

  -George