From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: <534C2612.7080602@eu.citrix.com> References: <1397068104-23714-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1397126549.9862.116.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53467EA9.1090305@citrix.com> <534C23AC.2050806@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <534C23AC.2050806@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson , Xen-devel , Frediano Ziglio , David Vrabel , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/14/2014 07:06 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 14/04/14 18:49, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Cooper >> wrote: >>> On 10/04/14 11:42, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 19:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> Some design decisions have been take very deliberately (e.g. splitting the >>>>> logic for PV and hvm migration) while others have been more along the lines of >>>>> "I think its a sensible thing to do given a lack of any evidence/opinion to >>>>> the contrary". >>>> Is there some indication of which is which? >>> Not really, given the clean rewrite, and also that it is only partially >>> complete. >>> >>>> Should we check in the desigh/spec which was previously posted as part >>>> of this? >>> I knew I forgot something... >>> >>> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/domain-save-format-E.pdf >> >> What did you imagine might constitute an "Optional" record? >> > > I did not opt for optional records, nor did I author them into the > spec. So sometimes tone is hard to read in an e-mail; your tone here seems a bit defensive, or at least rather strident; which seemed strange to me, but when I looked back at what I wrote, I realized that it could be read with a more sarcastic / biting tone than I intended. So, I don't know if you read it that way, but if you did, sorry about the misunderstanding; I was just being curious. :-) And if you didn't mean your tone to be strident, or it was strident for some other reason, nevermind. :-) -George