From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755038Ab0CVSCV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:02:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63236 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752920Ab0CVSCT (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:02:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA7B098.60205@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:02:00 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Pekka Enberg , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Joerg Roedel , Anthony Liguori , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project References: <4BA3747F.60401@codemonkey.ws> <20100321191742.GD25922@elte.hu> <4BA67B2F.4030101@redhat.com> <20100321203121.GA30194@elte.hu> <20100322111040.GL13108@8bytes.org> <20100322122228.GH3483@elte.hu> <20100322134633.GD1940@8bytes.org> <20100322163215.GC18796@elte.hu> <84144f021003221027t1a3e7d6ft64612654c5e50da@mail.gmail.com> <20100322174328.GA26949@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20100322174328.GA26949@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/22/2010 07:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> It's kinda funny to see people argue that having an external repository is >> not a problem and that it's not a big deal if building something from the >> repository is slightly painful as long as it doesn't require a PhD when we >> have _real world_ experience that it _does_ limit developer base in some >> cases. Whether or not that applies to kvm remains to be seen but I've yet to >> see a convincing argument why it doesn't. >> > Yeah. > > Also, if in fact the claim that the 'repository does not matter' is true then > it doesnt matter that it's hosted in tools/kvm/ either, right? > Again, the second it's moved to tools/kvm/ we strip it off anything that kvm can't use. > I.e. it's a win-win situation. Worst-case nothing happens beyond a Git URI > change. Best-case the project is propelled to never seen heights due to > contribution advantages not contemplated and not experienced by the KVM guys > before ... > You're exaggerating. There were 773 commits into qemu.git (excluding qemu-kvm.git) in the past three months. 162 for the same period for tools/perf. The pool is not that deep. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function