Re: [Nbd] [PATCH v3 1/2] doc: Use dedicated reply types for NBD_OPT_INFO/GO

[Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:37:52AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 09:31 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > Mmmm ... maybe. I'm not actually quite sure what the purpose of
> > sending the canonical name is, but if there is a purpose may be
> > we should set a 'canonical' flag on that one.
> 
> That argues that either we add a canonical field to NBD_INFO_NAME, or we
> have two separate types: NBD_INFO_CANONICAL_NAME (at most once), and
> NBD_INFO_ALTERNATE_NAME (as many as wanted).  I don't have any strong
> preferences about the need or desire to expose more than one name;
> anyone else want to chime in on whether I'm over-engineering things for
> current needs?

I think that's a bit overengineering, yes -- see my other mail.

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12