From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33185) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er7Fv-0006Wb-DD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:19:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er7Fu-00088F-Kq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:19:11 -0500 References: <20180223235142.21501-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20180223235142.21501-20-jsnow@redhat.com> <2c7f82a8-8b19-4f2d-b6d5-3c77258edf91@redhat.com> <20180228182326.GM4855@localhost.localdomain> From: John Snow Message-ID: <77de1883-4414-57b2-2fa7-72c2ff85ab8c@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:19:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180228182326.GM4855@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v4 19/21] blockjobs: Expose manual property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Eric Blake , qemu-block@nongnu.org, pkrempa@redhat.com, jtc@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 02/28/2018 01:23 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > But given how often I already said that and people still don't consider > it as an option, this doesn't appear to have been very convincing. So > whatever... *shrug* > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I initially *did* use two (or more?) variables to describe different points, and I was convinced to collapse it down into one boolean that meant "new or old" syntax. I was just hesitant to run out and change it back until further comments on what the series looked like at the moment. --js