> On 22/03/12 11:04, Mike Kolesnik wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to know if we want to support forward compatibility of OVF > > format, which is used for export/import of VMs/VM Templates. > > > > For example, > > I create a VM in a 3.1 system, export it to an export Domain. > > Should I be able to import this VM on a 3.0 system? > > > > I think we should support only backwards compatibility no need for > forward compatibility. > The question is should we block importing such a VM (that it's > version > is not something the engine identifies) I think we should block it > otherwise the engine will import the VM which can fail sometimes with > errors like NullPointerException which will end-up being filed as a > BZ.
I agree that this should be blocked, however to do so for older versions will require extra work that i don't know if we need or not.. > > > > Obviously, backwards compatibility (from older version to newer) is > > desired and is kept, but do we really need forward compatibility > > also? > > > > The reason I'm asking is some changes that need to be done in > > current > > OVF format to support new features. These new changes will be > > backwards-compatible with old OVF formats, but is it desirable for > > them > > to be forward compatible? > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
