Ping then, for 1.7 :)
(Don't stone me, I don't have the slightest clue about the 1.7 backlog.
I'm fine with this being tacked to the end, just don't let it fall
through the cracks.)
Thanks
Laszlo
On 07/22/13 23:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> rfc->v1:
> - addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2
On 07/29/13 13:11, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 07:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 29/07/2013 11:47, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>>> On 07/22/13 23:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
rfc->v1:
- addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2,
- patches 7 and 8 are new (unit tests),
- u
On 07/29/2013 07:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 29/07/2013 11:47, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>> On 07/22/13 23:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> rfc->v1:
>>> - addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2,
>>> - patches 7 and 8 are new (unit tests),
>>> - updated the cover letter to take native lists i
Il 29/07/2013 11:47, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> On 07/22/13 23:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> rfc->v1:
>> - addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2,
>> - patches 7 and 8 are new (unit tests),
>> - updated the cover letter to take native lists into account, plus
>> cleaned it up.
>
> Will this
On 07/22/13 23:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> rfc->v1:
> - addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2,
> - patches 7 and 8 are new (unit tests),
> - updated the cover letter to take native lists into account, plus
> cleaned it up.
Will this be considered for 1.7?
I'm not sure how Wanlong's NUMA
rfc->v1:
- addressed Paolo's comments for patches 1 and 2,
- patches 7 and 8 are new (unit tests),
- updated the cover letter to take native lists into account, plus
cleaned it up.
Consider the following QAPI schema fragment, for the purpose of command
line parsing with OptsVisitor:
{ 'union'
