Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 02/21] libxl: introduce a way to mark
fields as deprecated in the idl"):
> Thanks for the review. I've fixed all the other comments on the series
> and started an osstest flight, my aim is to post a new version of the
> series using the same deprecation idl
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:46:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Pau Monne writes ("[PATCH v2 02/21] libxl: introduce a way to mark
> fields as deprecated in the idl"):
> > The deprecation involves generating a function that copies the
> > deprecated fields into it's new location if the new
Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 02/21] libxl: introduce a way to mark fields as
deprecated in the idl"):
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:46:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> > We discussed how this might be done better. To me it seems like the
> > only really plausible alternative was to replace
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:46:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Pau Monne writes ("[PATCH v2 02/21] libxl: introduce a way to mark
> fields as deprecated in the idl"):
> > The deprecation involves generating a function that copies the
> > deprecated fields into it's new location if the new
Roger Pau Monne writes ("[PATCH v2 02/21] libxl: introduce a way to mark fields
as deprecated in the idl"):
> The deprecation involves generating a function that copies the
> deprecated fields into it's new location if the new location has not
> been set.
Hi. We had an IRL conversation which I
