From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Stable branch releases?
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:44:32 -0600
Message-ID: <499095B0.3000103@us.ibm.com>
References: <49908368.4010707@us.ibm.com> <49908557.7050504@redhat.com>	 <49908668.1070909@us.ibm.com> <5d6222a80902091149u3675673dk1619abab6b6580bb@mail.gmail.com> <49908DCC.1090901@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:39494 "EHLO
	e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752725AbZBIUpA (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:45:00 -0500
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227])
	by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n19KhrCh009501
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:43:53 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168])
	by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n19Kix8K187236
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:45:00 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n19KiwNx020252
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:44:59 -0700
In-Reply-To: <49908DCC.1090901@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>> As we're getting close to kvm-xxx anyway, maybe we could forget this 
>> number
>> scheme, and adopt something that tracks linux. This way, you know 
>> exactly what
>> kernel a released is based on. Something in the lines of kvm-29.1  
>> for updates
>> to the .29 series, (of course _this_ scheme is bad, because it brings 
>> clashes)
>>   
>
> It also ignores qemu, which is larger contributor to user visible 
> features...
>
> Maybe stable releases should have separate packages for kvm and qemu: 
> kvm-modules-2.6.29.1 and qemu-kvm-0.9.1.17.  Users would pick the 
> latest of each, and would only need to upgrade a component that's 
> changed.

Yes, this would be IMHO the best overall solution.  Can we take 
kvm-userspace maint/2.6.29 and call it qemu-kvm-0.9.1-1?  Most users 
don't need newer kernel modules if they have a relatively recent distro.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori