On 01/24/11 17:51, Michael Roth wrote: > On 01/24/2011 04:16 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> It's obviously contentious, and it is not core functionality. In order >> to get the patches adapted upstream it would easy the process to remove >> it and keep it as a separate patch. > > Fair enough, the proposed copyfile replacement would be suitable as well. > > My main concern is stripping away too much functionality for the initial > merge, since guest-initiated shutdown is all we'd really have left > lacking viewdmesg/viewfile. > > Would it be better to get copyfile in for the initial set of patches, or > as a subsequent set?
Having copyfile would be good in an initial release too - however we should probably review it in the light of Dan's suggestion of using libguestfs. I am working on freeze/thaw support which I hope to have ready within a couple of days. It would be nice to get in, in an early release as well. Cheers, Jes
