From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51135) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WhiuI-0003Ga-R9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 13:11:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WhiuD-0001IN-TK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 13:11:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50668) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WhiuD-0001I9-M7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 13:11:49 -0400 Message-ID: <536917CE.5080808@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 11:11:42 -0600 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20140502135218.31383.90270.stgit@fimbulvetr.bsc.es> <20140506130740.GA17717@irqsave.net> <20140506092725.4c195cbd@redhat.com> <5368F7F8.3090706@redhat.com> <20140506125527.3de22819@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140506125527.3de22819@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T6bNU4B5nJ5iaKgi3hBCqKR6VRPoAOb4F" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 0/4] qapi: Allow modularization of QAPI schema files List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudCBDYW5ldA==?= , Markus Armbruster , =?UTF-8?B?TGx1w61zIFZpbGFub3Zh?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --T6bNU4B5nJ5iaKgi3hBCqKR6VRPoAOb4F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/06/2014 10:55 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 06 May 2014 08:55:52 -0600 > Eric Blake wrote: >=20 >>> Eventually, we might want to have if/defs and whatnot. But having a m= aster >>> file seems a reasonable first step to me. I actually thought this was= the >>> intention. Unless I got it wrong, of course. >> >> Ifdefs may be a bit much. If we add them, then we can worry about >> explicit include guards, the same as the C preprocessor. But for now,= >> I'd be perfectly fine with a followup patch that includes a file's >> contents exactly once, no matter how many times it is included (that i= s, >> act as if include guards were implicitly present, since we lack >> conditionals, so include files are currently idempotent). >=20 > OK. Does it make sense to merge the current series without that > modification? Yes. Idempotent inclusion as a followup patch is just fine; and the current series is still useful for some clients without waiting for idempotent inclusion to make it useful for even more clients. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --T6bNU4B5nJ5iaKgi3hBCqKR6VRPoAOb4F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTaRfOAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqYvwH/RnWe5jF2fI4/lezbD7oNJvP LEMXjXblhm2vwQklm+g9d39yMVduPg3CyfRgkAz07h3gWOIB0rIel5snoibGARkK qvcve5pmN/oS4a3Xa248kIOnYbTgDsT7ONytq8ctqq2XHdYnQjikwFON+wB4IOnw 35Y3Ly4QhKghXTeS8zg2UjRzGiv4t4QuYd3wG5OF8ViRXFqMJRUETgR8j7xhGybW eC5mhEn7cDfyPJVJocpoowDu8KtMX6oeI9GUB42MteUO+7NmSHWEajqafgTaYrjC uqzQsGEu9E8T9z3r/TbOSm3KF9cIA5PaThOGsyyEC4XIXfqGevm4zR/sUkbF0/U= =X+QY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T6bNU4B5nJ5iaKgi3hBCqKR6VRPoAOb4F--