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 5F77CCD6E55 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU5yL-0006hl-Uf; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:58:41 -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 1wU5yJ-0006hG-Ta for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:58:40 -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 1wU5yI-0004ut-Bu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:58:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780333116; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ybkj6mEhgP8eAxFJNLPjYomL7/a72+5yaRdPCUasjg0=; b=bM5LjzR6rEtGSMhdI7wR8cFsvFklzHKAsX+X+TWi7wmi+md7Ri65c9fvnDJ8lvoFDVYZap jwctwmpgSMwTjIM8d0PEKSBAU95ACWhg0t93vGBls658/zmB0feVVeHlnOlamdDo2gR6rW zBJQ8G8jxJhWvXCqExKQbVzuP0RJiKY= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-349-4UzV70gwOYORGoLUM3vRNg-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:58:32 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4UzV70gwOYORGoLUM3vRNg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 4UzV70gwOYORGoLUM3vRNg_1780333110 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00A61956094; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.2.16.102]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FA71800577; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 12:58:24 -0400 From: Stefan Hajnoczi To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Albert Esteve , 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 , 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: <20260601165824.GA428611@fedora> References: <874ijtz038.fsf@draig.linaro.org> <20260601083628-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260601090953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260601102216-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Gas364zqSwtfrver" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260601102216-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=stefanha@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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 --Gas364zqSwtfrver Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 10:22:32AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:51:40AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:12=E2=80=AFAM 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=E2=80=AFPM 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 decoupli= ng > > > > > > specification development from QEMU's review and release cycles. > > > > > > > > > > Generally for QEMU this will be less agility, unless I misunderst= and > > > > > what is proposed) > > > > > > > > > > Because presumably there will need to be spec releases then? > > > > > > > > > > So > > > > > new feature -> spec tree -> spec release -> qemu implemen= tation -> 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 managem= ent > > > > 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. > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > wait who said that? I thought that's what the issue ultimately comes down to but it's clear now that's not it. Stefan --Gas364zqSwtfrver Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEhpWov9P5fNqsNXdanKSrs4Grc8gFAmodujAACgkQnKSrs4Gr c8iMnAf9FhEItYatirGCRYlUNMtMnIJh1WEgBLyVx4ky+bk7z8ymjwkelgdzS3al kjlqNgY8W0r8acJQfpLCFWC8Sn7gpDvlVV8761wskleBkCUk19DM5HHYpG/8e7bZ bggBp9QsfuumCelE5rx4ePa8ria9EmxChbMyQ1fy1318FK8tI8omZddUvX9RrvQg tkYu9svT9hGeul5H2KlhvpS2HHdbCs6CvpSckp04/gP+dDvCdOr+Qwn8FKGOkNMx gz8GHZMlKuBuFj/di3CFc1yaXposopIjNl0bDZ4p7/o8vT3/7D+rgiY+EyEku5ox oVW1egvEDYlKV3JLDUN+M9GkYyhqpQ== =y53Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Gas364zqSwtfrver--