Am 18.06.2019 um 09:31 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 17.06.2019 19:03, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 17.06.2019 um 13:37 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > >> 08.06.2019 1:26, John Snow wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/3/19 8:00 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > >>>> Hi all! > >>>> > >>>> Here is block-dirty-bitmap-remove transaction action. > >>>> > >>>> It is used to do transactional movement of the bitmap (which is > >>>> possible in conjunction with merge command). Transactional bitmap > >>>> movement is needed in scenarios with external snapshot, when we don't > >>>> want to leave copy of the bitmap in the base image. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Oh, interesting. I see why you want this now. OK, let's do it. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Hi John! > >> > >> Hmm, could you stage it, or should I fix something? Seems I've answered > >> all questions. > >> We need this for our nearest release and wanting to avoid x-vz- prefixes > >> in the API, > >> I'd be very grateful if we merge it soon. > > > > I hope you won't have to do this, but in any case x-vz- isn't the right > > prefix. Please read section '6. Downstream extension of QMP' in > > docs/interop/qmp-spec.txt before adding your own extensions. > > > > According to the spec, your prefix would be something like > > __com.virtuozzo-... > > > > Thanks for pointing to that, I thought about this some time ago when saw Red > Hat prefixes.. > Still x-vz- is a lot better than nothing and most probably will not intersect > with future > things. However, we'll move to correct prefixes of course.
Yes, I agree that x-vz- is unlikely to cause any trouble in practice, it's just out-of-spec strictly speaking. So for anything new that you introduce, it would be better to follow the spec. Kevin