Re: [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 14/04/2014 19:16, George Dunlap wrote:
> 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
>>> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> 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
>

I honestly don't know for certain what my tone was intending to be.  As
far as thoughts went, it was very much  "I am writing an email, but
holding people up going to the pub, where I would also like to be".

Perhaps in retrospect the wording wasn't as good as it could have been.

As for optional records themselves; I don't have an objection to them
being in the spec, but I can't see any practical use for them.  They do
no harm being specified yet unused (and I more important things to do
with my time than try to argue against them).

~Andrew