On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Planning the feature freeze:
- what is left to merge?
- test day?
Paolo
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to older releases.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
On 10/11/2011 06:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Planning the feature freeze:
- what is left to merge?
- test day?
Great topic. Just a reminder, we're looking at release dates
On 10/11/2011 06:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to older releases.
Problem with subsections:
The encoding of a subsection within an embedded
On 10/11/2011 03:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to older releases.
Problem with subsections:
On 10/11/2011 08:21 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to
Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to older releases.
Subsections
---
- Current subsections are a mess (TM). The idea was to only
On 10/11/2011 03:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
5) Implement subsections through the wire as top-level sections (as
originally intended). Keep existing subsections with (1).
That was (3).
Yes, sorry.
btw, it's reasonable to require that backwards migration is only to a
fully updated
On 10/11/2011 08:27 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/10/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Subsections, version numbers, migration to older releases.
Subsections
---
- Current
On 10/11/2011 08:47 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
5) Implement subsections through the wire as top-level sections (as
originally intended). Keep existing subsections with (1).
That was (3).
Yes, sorry.
btw, it's reasonable to require that
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the door on
better fixes in the future.
I think Juan made a really good point in his earlier post. We need to
focus on better testing for migration. With a solid migration torture
On 10/11/2011 09:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the door on
better fixes in the future.
I think Juan made a really good point in his earlier post. We need to
focus on better testing for
On 10/11/2011 04:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/11/2011 09:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the
door on
better fixes in the future.
I think Juan made a really good point in his earlier
On 10/11/2011 09:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:27 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
I've been thinking about it this morning. I think it's solvable. We
need to be able to save off the qdev construction properties right
before init. This is just a matter of storing a list of
Hi
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
Thanks, Juan.
pgpsWpNSfkqQb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
