On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:28:06PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:42:37PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 07:29:15PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > > In summary you seem to be saying that all the years we have spent > > > fiddling around with those mind-boggling compat_props in QEMU were in > > > vain because libvirt now wants to start their own versioning system to > > > give users more degrees of freedom even when you can't articulate a > > > single concrete reason why users may want to do so. > > > > I had a similar reaction when I learned about this libvirt > > expectation/requirement I was never aware of. But "we spent lots of > > effort trying to do things differently" doesn't seem like a valid > > justification for design decision. > > "Users will be hurt because they'll run untested configurations" > seems like a valid reason.
I trust libvirt developers to test their CPU definitions as carefully as we test ours. -- Eduardo
