From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35069 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OCWZh-00075a-5L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 07:27:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OCTt0-0004MY-U6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 04:35:20 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57135)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OCTt0-0004MK-LV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 04:35:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4BEBB9C2.3050302@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 10:35:14 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1273696161-14332-1-git-send-email-crobinso@redhat.com>
	<4BEB11DD.20601@redhat.com> <4BEB142F.2000002@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEB142F.2000002@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Revive -version 'QEMU PC Emulator...'
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Cole Robinson <crobinso@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, clalance@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 05/12/10 22:48, Cole Robinson wrote:
> I agree libvirt's method is a crappy approach. Adding a proper -version
> argument is certainly the way forward, but doesn't help users with
> existing libvirt installations that want to use latest qemu. This is the
> type of issue that libvirt devs will be fielding for months. Ideally i'd
> like the order to be:
> 
> 1) Apply this patch
> 2) Add a proper -version argument, maybe named -version_num
> 3) libvirt patched to use new version argument (and robustify legacy
> version parsing)
> 4) Some reasonable amount of time from now (6 months, a year?), edit the
> current -version string at will
> 
> I'd be willing to do 2 and 3 if people agree.

Hi Cole,

I think rather than 1, it would be better to add a patch to libvirt to
catch both formats. I know Chris Lalancette already cooked up a patch
for this. Combined with the 2) patch I just posted, and 3) I think that
should take care of the problems.

Cheers,
Jes