[Libvir] [PATCH][RFC] libvirt ldoms support

John Levon levon at movementarian.org
Thu Apr 10 20:42:55 UTC 2008

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:27:01PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > How can that be interpreted as anything but 'final'? An RFC is not
> > about implementation details, it should be about the big picture.
> > Already shipping a supported product based on an XML format that
> > was not discussed upstream prior is about as final as it gets, IMO.
> Yes, that's exactly the point I was attempting to make. The fact that
> there is a shipped LDoms 'libvirt' release is a huge problem, because
> it has now diluted the value of libvirt, because it is not compatible
> with the official libvirt.

That's a totally different point from Cole's actually. Cole would have
been complaining about ldoms 1.0.0 (no libvirt). You're complaining
about the libvirt ldoms release Sun did.  AFAIK it was a "technology
preview". Nothing is based on top of it.

Furthermore, speaking for myself, the release of software by Sun has no
relevance to the libvirt project IMO. If the project needs changes that
causes problems for Sun, Sun have to take the hit.

Since Eunice has already agreed that the use of the native ldoms format
was a mistake, and that it will get fixed, I don't think this
conversation is going to end up being productive, so I'll stop here.


More information about the libvir-list mailing list