Cc'ed Michal and Nikolay.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:01:37AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 05:53 AM, Xiubo Li wrote:
> > 
> >  src/qemu/qemu_agent.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  src/util/virjson.h    |  7 +++++++
> >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> Since this has been sitting around for a long time with a response -

Yes, we sent the patch more than 2 months ago,exactly at 07/07/2016.
And then we sent a ping mail wanting to get any response from libvirt
community. But unfortunately there's none.

> figured I'd point out something that was pushed today:

John, thank you for your kindly remainder. We know it just now and find
out that we were even not cc'ed when it happened.

> It addresses/resolves the issue in essentially the same manner, although
> it doesn't check the empty {} reply, rather it just makes the else
> condition be a ignored delay reply....  There's also a few more patches
> to the series.

Michal, could you please explain why you merged a later-sent patch rather than 
first-sent one? We worked very hard to solve this issue and contribute the patch
to fix it. And we always hopefully want to exchange with you guys from the 

Our company focus on cloud computing technology and we contribute to qemu, linux
kernel, kvm and openstack community. But this situation is the first time we met
in our long-time contribution to these communities. This is the traditional of
libvirt community or something?

We strongly recommend the later patch series rebase on our patch.


> John

libvir-list mailing list

Reply via email to