On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:41:51PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: [...] > I am going to stop arguing here and suggest you put this on the agenda > for the next KVM call.
I am a bit confused. You said "I don't mind there being an optional custom model" in a previous message. If you have objections to libvirt API design decisions, I understand it, but I suggest you take them to the libvir-list mailing list. Now, if you have objections to having an optional custom model (i.e. valid reasons to not apply patch 1/2), please let me know. I didn't see a single argument to reject the patch, yet. -- Eduardo
