Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> One of the most important maintainer duties is saying "no". It's also >> >> one of the least fun duties. >> >> >> >> >> > It doesn't sound like a "no" :) >> >> Well, it's as close to "no" as you can get in a situation that's going >> to change! It's a straight "no" for the current situation, and a >> "maybe" for a future situation that will be different in ways we don't >> yet understand. >> >> I'm *not* encouraging you to pursue asynchronous QMP commands. In fact, >> I never did, at least not knowingly. It's your decision. All I offer >> is what I offer to all patch submitters: my best effort at a fair >> hearing. > > My understanding is that you are mainly against the new client 'async' > capability. We disagree on the added complexity for the client though, as > in my opinion it already exists today in some hidden form. So would you > revisit the conclusion if the client 'async' capability is removed? The > series would still bring internal async capability, fix screendump bug and > do a bit of cleanup.
No, I'm concerned about the additional *concepts*. How exactly they're exposed in QMP is secondary.
