Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
Extending the enumeration adds argument values, i.e. it's just fine.
