Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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'
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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 qc
Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> There are still more features I'd like to see added to qcow2 so I'm
> hoping that it's not frozen. For instance, copy-on-read would be very
> useful.
>
qcow2 was released as part of qemu 0.9.0. People are using it. How can
we contemplate non backward compatible cha
On 8/8/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 compatibilit
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 update
Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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
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
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 w
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 s
On 8/6/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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
Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Jorge Lucángeli Obes wrote:
>
>> Ideas? Suggestions? I can send the patches for the functionality
>> that's implemented right now.
>>
>>
>
> Great idea, and one I would certainly use. I guess then on Windoze I
> could associate .qcow2 files with qemu and just double
Jorge Lucángeli Obes wrote:
>
> Ideas? Suggestions? I can send the patches for the functionality
> that's implemented right now.
>
Great idea, and one I would certainly use. I guess then on Windoze I
could associate .qcow2 files with qemu and just double click to run my
VMs? It would be good to
Jorge Lucángeli Obes wrote:
[...]
> Laurent, do you want the patches for the functionality that's working
> right now? We can divide the (not very big amount of) work that's
> left. It consists basically on teaching qemu how to look for command
> line options, if none are present on the current inv
On 7/30/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorge Lucángeli Obes wrote:
> > Hi Avi, hi all,
>
> I believe that Laurent (copied) is also interested in this area.
Copied him.
> > I've started some (very minor) groundwork for this task. My idea was
> > to add an extra "annotation" field in q
Jorge Lucángeli Obes wrote:
> Hi Avi, hi all,
>
>
I believe that Laurent (copied) is also interested in this area.
> I've started some (very minor) groundwork for this task. My idea was
> to add an extra "annotation" field in qcow2 snapshots. In this way, a
> snapshot can hold abitrary informa
Hi Avi, hi all,
I've started some (very minor) groundwork for this task. My idea was
to add an extra "annotation" field in qcow2 snapshots. In this way, a
snapshot can hold abitrary information; for example, command line
arguments.
Before going any further, I wanted to validate the general idea w
17 matches
Mail list logo
