From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZtbUj-0006Jq-VG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:19:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZtbUf-0007ci-Jg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:19:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48916) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZtbUf-0007cL-FA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:19:21 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62ED42E5D7 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:19:17 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20151103081917.1d348ad1@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87egg7lffd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> References: <5633C8EC.8030309@redhat.com> <874mh44wvs.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56378572.5020203@redhat.com> <87egg8nro5.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5637C2B3.6090609@redhat.com> <87egg7lffd.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: libyajl for JSON List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:17:58 +0100 Markus Armbruster wrote: > > So at this point, I want to see if lloyd makes any progress towards an > > actual yajl release and/or adding a co-maintainer, before even trying to > > get formal upstream support for single quoting. We could always create > > a git submodule with our own choice of fork (since there are already > > forks that do single-quote parsing) - but the mantra of 'upstream first' > > has a lot of merit (I'm reluctant to fork without good reason). > > The value proposition of replacing our flawed JSON parser isn't in > saving big on maintenance, it's in not having to find and fix its flaws. > > If the replacement needs a lot of work to fit our needs, the value > proposition becomes negative. > > A JSON parser shouldn't require much maintenance, as JSON is simple, > doesn't change, and parsing has few system dependencies. Let me suggest this crazy idea: have you guys considered breaking compatibility?