Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a > further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes > that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field > name uniqueness as unions are flattened.
I apologize for the long delay. Sick child, sick me, much snot, little sleep. PATCH 1 is wrong, but I was able to figure out what's going on there, and suggested a patch that hopefully works. PATCH 2 is okay. I suggested a few tweaks. I'd put it first, but that's up to you. PATCH 3 looks good. Looking forward to v3.
