On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:40:25 +0200 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Il 25/04/2013 14:26, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >> That's a good point, although I wonder if a command could have a new > >> capability that's not mapped to a new argument. IOW, I'd expect most/all > >> new capabilities to always be mapped to new arguments. > > > > A new enum value would also be a new capability, but it's handled better > > by enabling introspection of enum values. > > An extension that adds neither arguments nor argument values is probably > an incompatible change, not a proper extension. Don't do that then. I think Paolo is referring to a command that takes an enumeration as an argument, eg. transaction.
