From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40AB8CD5BD1 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 14:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU3mL-0002LH-OK; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:38:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU3mJ-0002Kr-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:38:07 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU3mI-00082a-6g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:38:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780324684; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zgfJn6jgdDZ5kywXtUqLLHdwAjzX+oqe3dGLFNRDz44=; b=c1FRIdE8dec4hTSCAxEeCBwMsITFqso5ddGpyLGoQTZSnuz+sABlDVqAILXzAtcnF6+WrU 3Av7vKPU96RIz+LekzZDfe9243aKaArYT5pq4lin/SvPAKEX+dLaKzAvdWGsx7IOGb6yF8 MAObucV+asvxji9LZjmO9L0mmrRfgmQ= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-547-mHaGOPP_OyaSyHW8xMP2iA-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:38:03 -0400 X-MC-Unique: mHaGOPP_OyaSyHW8xMP2iA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: mHaGOPP_OyaSyHW8xMP2iA_1780324682 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a7aeaddbso11273495e9.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1780324682; x=1780929482; darn=nongnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zgfJn6jgdDZ5kywXtUqLLHdwAjzX+oqe3dGLFNRDz44=; b=fCgxfv16PlCU20HkmDRdgV1Ndkhlu3Fqk0naXzah6jOrXVBGDXIZiVjYwP+dxicxfI u8V0gwWtvIwMw/g1uy3xvdoS7uzx1K/oLJDhf0X9/eGdFgpCqBDcYgFqzq8rqbVsWLR3 Qric+HRhXClNJ1ZQohEkCwi09mi7kZ2ritnrfpOes8jF7xOupXugTjqQc9/RPjgDQr4f Mx007gE4ShaRgpNvHq0mzhSm+B+dCQ9tKzsa1TJsrTes7Sbg0k0QFp46n0KcI4HA5fyc nduoiozEFY4A26dJG19L8eu/RLw3sll7tQzxUebvAgLVVErib23674vyzEy1qUyrQAax Ku2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780324682; x=1780929482; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zgfJn6jgdDZ5kywXtUqLLHdwAjzX+oqe3dGLFNRDz44=; b=TyAess/hRPtz5wJNFyfMX+YquY2MUGa9/J8qrK2BK8QBoNFyIHME/1nEBx1X462Sc1 LFxR16/4qfC3kjnwgtWY4wD4moZs+tesRpq8e7H15X6G/ZEAQTgptnTAoRfn+v0YHUOK swVlFk2GrTdUHwbDeDb8wkEp04Wd2nDGHRiB4mi47YsJau7yx2W1KE/cj2daILNIOU4c bf/kMve+A3j+7niGE7fEFb9l7McrP/KHtZMaWVLzuYfKdCxxm9PA4F69qvSmdDnakvbH b8M9g5kA9pu2KlxqrRShzH2qrQ4A0PXG2ucFBOwx3fUfW+evEz8B2l22rJFpeO2QG7KP H3Fw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ9o4eHrp+DsSaUCGrUkXk3i2OxpaQ6UBa2bdcmHdOfJoooy08yXAtg0ZUr6o7xNTeJUilI7h6AVmINw@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzEUdCB7rdTrKH4GALYlMjVCmHDaZYvaYkz0JzOxnJ+AZr1L/gr yt9s4iuZ5I/3WlMYBJGGcfusVJ1MgWD/dKWKXp2UOMH0T6XRU+lRtHjnk+P6uV656IimOIZP9v8 gKLfF/iZ40RffAcgBrCBjLKnN4DU8mnvD7anExshzpVCorWmn+1Jk6ISh X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OFRSHay7mF7QYLS4vsHFKjdLBpIPv9scPHSYnmU44frhxuvui63cqD66EdAbhI U/vim9nG23hl0Kam5mRKk6r9yhD9GMaohY2OPfwr4b2zZdUxGbjiNcEfbqXOw1joMMhUEMnW1lR DTZ+qRVd9c4Io+hT5204STG+0Lu3nY+8In2l808hXW6I1+8SFizfEhRnVmQwiBFidBlDb+2oreW i0wSmeNpUpwBHmJrPS1gT6+pkPJg/IkM6+LzPexXrjIzlOP3b3U4kZgcUCMYXZWlkvJOLeKybRQ z+NWvfBk6LdX+bu2qahIcv3UwQvmNOJUd6zmwoDVTyOWZuGwx+OZJWj5H1vXo1gDQlULvpLkqs+ 4afIktX0rlQwkB/xm5agrijDwJyY5ZFCM8pe7JRtLhsct8XR3m6lspQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:314e:b0:48f:e230:29f4 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a2a78973mr166523595e9.15.1780324681758; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:314e:b0:48f:e230:29f4 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a2a78973mr166523055e9.15.1780324681159; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (IGLD-80-230-25-45.inter.net.il. [80.230.25.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0467957sm5583625e9.13.2026.06.01.07.37.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 10:37:57 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Albert Esteve Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , qemu-devel , virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev, dev@lists.cloudhypervisor.org, rust-vmm@lists.opendev.org, Stefano Garzarella , Manos Pitsidianakis , Demi Marie Obenour , Alyssa Ross , Mark Burton , Matti Moell , Stefan Hajnoczi , Viresh Kumar , Dorinda Bassey , Sergio Lopez , Vishwanath Seshagiri , Rob Bradford , Zhengyu Zhao , "Jorge E. Moreira" Subject: Re: Where should the vhost-user specification live? Message-ID: <20260601103715-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <874ijtz038.fsf@draig.linaro.org> <20260601083628-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260601090953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.445, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 04:27:46PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 3:51 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:12 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:39 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:32:11PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > > > > > But also because, in my opinion, separating > > > > > > the specification would improve development agility by decoupling > > > > > > specification development from QEMU's review and release cycles. > > > > > > > > > > Generally for QEMU this will be less agility, unless I misunderstand > > > > > what is proposed) > > > > > > > > > > Because presumably there will need to be spec releases then? > > > > > > > > > > So > > > > > new feature -> spec tree -> spec release -> qemu implementation -> qemu release > > > > > > > > > > is surely longer that what we have now. > > > > > > > > I see your point. > > > > > > > > However, we do not really need to introduce a heavy release management > > > > layer. We could just operate it as a living document, where the main > > > > branch is the authoritative source of truth. > > > > > > > > For the workflow, development doesn't have to be strictly sequential > > > > either. A contributor can propose the spec update while working on the > > > > implementation, much like we do for VirtIO updates. Actually, this way > > > > one update/change supports the other. > > > > > > > > I guess my point is that a dedicated repository could lower the > > > > barrier for new changes AND keep QEMU's own development speed mostly > > > > unaffected. > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > Albert > > > > > > Something something submodule? Possibly. If you want to make progress > > > on this, pls think of the process, try it out. > > > > If I understand correctly, the motivation for moving the spec > > somewhere else is to replace the email patch review process with a git > > forge review process? > > > > This seems like a superficial change and is not worth in my opinion if > > you consider we'll have to redirect from the old spec location and > > move the community over to the new repo. > > The core issue from my perspective is project neutrality and > decoupling lifecycles. Then maybe we can keep the email based review? Still the only one with a decent offline capability. > Currently, protocol updates are tied to QEMU's tree rules and release > freezes for example. Since these changes also affect other projects > (like rust-vmm, crosvm, DPDK, etc.), separating them may make sense > and could streamline the process. > > >We could actually lose spec > > change reviewers in the process either because they don't know what's > > going on or decide that they prefer to spend time elsewhere when faced > > with switching processes (the people who review and participate in > > discussion do so out of personal interest and as far as I'm aware no > > one is employed to work on vhost-user as their #1 priority). > > This is a fair concern. I hope we maintain reviewer engagement. But it > could also be argued that contributors from other communities may be > more comfortable with a dedicated project-neutral home. It could well > go both ways, but it also represents an opportunity to grow. > > > > > Having said that, here is what I imagine it would involve: > > > > 1. Michael creates a new repo on a git forge (if he wants it to be > > under the GitLab qemu-project organization I can help with creating > > the repo, otherwise he creates a new organization and repo). > > 2. Discussion happens in Issues. > > 3. Spec changes are proposed in Merge Requests. Michael merges them > > once consensus has been reached. > > Mostly yes, though we wouldn't necessarily need Michael as the sole > gatekeeper. We could invite co-maintainers from other key projects to > share the reviewer load. > > Also I'd want to clarify that although I am advocating for this > change, I do not claim to have the definitive roadmap. I am just > sharing my view on why this could be a positive evolution. Consensus > may end up being to remain with the current status quo, or any of the > other options proposed by Alex. > > > > It's similar to what we have now in qemu.git, except that a git forge is used. > > > > Stefan > >