From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Stable branch releases? Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:10:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4992C023.2030004@redhat.com> References: <49908368.4010707@us.ibm.com> <49908557.7050504@redhat.com> <49908668.1070909@us.ibm.com> <5d6222a80902091149u3675673dk1619abab6b6580bb@mail.gmail.com> <49908DCC.1090901@redhat.com> <499095B0.3000103@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Glauber Costa , kvm-devel To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:49731 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755897AbZBKMKS (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:10:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <499095B0.3000103@us.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > > 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. > Right, that's another advantage of split repos. I wonder about splitting the ordinary kvm-xx releases? It means doubling the download/build/install cycle, but it will increase similarity to the stable releases. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function