From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Stable branch releases?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:26 -0600
Message-ID: <4992CEF6.2020904@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> <499095B0.3000103@us.ibm.com> <4992C023.2030004@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 e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:42751 "EHLO
	e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754884AbZBKNNw (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:13:52 -0500
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106])
	by e38.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1BDC54D022265
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:12:05 -0700
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167])
	by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n1BDDpKc207160
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:13:51 -0700
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n1BDDp10022500
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:13:51 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4992C023.2030004@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.

I was going to suggest that to but then wanted to avoid complicating 
things.  I think it's the right model.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori