Re: [Nbd] More efficient treatment of experimental protocol extensions
- To: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>, Eric Blake <eblake@...696...>
- Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] More efficient treatment of experimental protocol extensions
- From: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 13:27:27 +0100
- Message-id: <2AE45F88-7B2A-42FD-9677-74FEA814A178@...872...>
- In-reply-to: <46155071-E7D4-444A-A4CE-4D63A5294E09@...872...>
- References: <7BCE420B-F123-4E0E-A442-50BB51292BE0@...872...> <20160414153842.GD13169@...3...> <41F5C452-B8EB-4563-B77A-B0E6D9B1DA67@...872...> <C586921E-4B43-4418-B8B1-71E76EA6E098@...872...> <20160416170619.GA3033@...3...> <46155071-E7D4-444A-A4CE-4D63A5294E09@...872...>
On 16 Apr 2016, at 18:30, Alex Bligh <alex@...872...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested in confirmation that this approach works for people.
>>
>> Sure does.
>
> Great. As you can see I've done the structured replies extension too
> now.
>
>> Detail: might be an idea to retain the "extensions" section, but have it
>> just be links to the specs and a one- or two-sentence description of
>> what they entail?
>
> That was exactly what I planned to do, plus some text about how
> to propose new extensions (email this list) and how they get
> incorporated (discussion on list, preferably code in the
> reference implementation, preferably demonstrable interworking
> with other implementations).
I have now applied this.
* master now has no extensions in
* There are three branches: extension-info, extension-write-zeroes
and extension-structured-reply which cover the three extensions.
Please provide further changes to extensions as patches against
the relevant branch, rather than against master.
--
Alex Bligh
Reply to: