Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 07:10:17AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> I don't think adding annotations as snapshots is the right approach. I >>> think proper support should be added in the header. I wouldn't be too >>> concerned with breaking compatibility in qcow2. That's why it's qcow2 >>> and not just an updated version of qcow, qcow2 is still, AFAIK, open for >>> breakage. >>> >>> >> Are all the users' images open for breakage too? >> > > I'd say not. QCow2 has been around for a long time now so breaking compat > with existing images would be a very bad idea. Ideally though some extension > would be both backwards & forwards compatible - eg existing qcow2 impls > would just ignore any new extension, while new impls would work any image > with or without extension. If this isn't possible then at least call any > new format qcow3 to make it obvious to users that it is not compatible. >
It was, of course, a rhetorical question. I initially suggested using a special snapshot as a means of preserving compatibility with qcow2, which I think is better than introducing yet a new format. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
