From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42840) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJKKV-00046N-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 07:15:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJKKU-000802-S2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 07:15:11 -0500 References: <1452578622-4492-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <20160112141607.GD4841@noname.redhat.com> <569514E7.8090101@redhat.com> <20160112152051.GG4841@noname.redhat.com> <5695201C.2050504@openvz.org> <569628FB.3020204@redhat.com> <569630EC.5050209@openvz.org> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <56963FC5.7060500@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:15:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569630EC.5050209@openvz.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] blk: do not select PFLASH device for internal snapshot List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Denis V. Lunev" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Paolo Bonzini , Dmitry Andreev , qemu-block@nongnu.org On 01/13/16 12:11, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > On 01/13/2016 01:37 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> meta comment here: >> >> On 01/12/16 16:47, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> >>> P.S. Here is a summary that my colleague has receiver from libvirt >>> list. >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: Snapshotting OVMF guests >>> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:56:29 +0100 >>> From: Laszlo Ersek >>> To: Dmitry Andreev >>> CC: Michal Privoznik , Markus Armbruster >>> >>> >>> Hello Dmitry, >>> >>> [...] >> Your colleague Dmitry did not receive this from the libvirt list. He >> received the from me in private. See the headers above. >> >> Please do not publicize a private exchange without asking for permission >> first. >> >> In the present case I don't mind it. I stand by everything I said, and I >> would have written mostly the same if I had been contacted publicly, >> on-list. >> >> But if you contact me in private *first*, then I expect the discussion >> to remain private. If you want to forward the email to a public list, >> please ask for permission. Otherwise I might consider it more prudent >> for myself to answer all private queries with just "please ask me this >> on the list instead". >> >> I appreciate that you guys are working on this, but let's handle emails >> sensibly. >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo >> > Sorry :( I have not properly checked the message :( > > I am guilty.. No prob, it's just that I've burned myself a few times before, hence I've grown to double check the address list when receiving & sending email. "List address not present" implies "other guy wants it to be private" to me. :) Cheers Laszlo