From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60545)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RDcgY-0007zt-Q2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:48:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RDcgT-0004QQ-4M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:47:58 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36280)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RDcgS-0004QI-TY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:47:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4E944903.4020206@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:47:47 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m3listoz9b.fsf@neno.neno>
	<4E942CFA.5040403@redhat.com>	<4E943E21.10501@codemonkey.ws>
	<4E9442EC.8020903@redhat.com> <4E944440.1080109@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4E944440.1080109@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for October 11th
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, quintela@redhat.com

On 10/11/2011 03:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> 5) Implement subsections through the wire as top-level sections (as
>> originally intended).  Keep existing subsections with (1).
>
>
> That was (3).
>

Yes, sorry.

>> btw, it's reasonable to require that backwards migration is only to a
>> fully updated stable release, so we can do 5) too, or backport 1).
>
> But given the choice of a nasty silent failure to an
> not-quite-up-to-date stable release or failing migration to a fully
> up-to-date stable release, I think it's better that we err on the side
> of caution.

We're erring on the side of no migration, it seems.

> Not being able to migrate because of a recoverable failure is
> annoying.  Having a silent failure that possible results in corruption
> is unacceptable.

What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the door on
better fixes in the future.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function