From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MuCx3-0005SU-Bz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:19:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MuCx0-0005Rl-0U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:19:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34112 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MuCwz-0005Ri-Qv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:19:37 -0400 Received: from ra.coresystems.de ([80.81.252.129]:51033) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MuCwz-0008JF-54 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:19:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [coreboot] [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0 From: Patrick Georgi In-Reply-To: <2a50f7880910031513u713f7d52xc95847e9b248964b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AC4A487.1050003@us.ibm.com> <2a50f7880910011741k65ac8dfbq2fc8c9f58f5fa8d9@mail.gmail.com> <4AC60037.6000001@codemonkey.ws> <2a50f7880910020958g3fe5eadehe5e5094c05b218d9@mail.gmail.com> <4AC64A5C.6010003@gmx.net> <4AC64C32.4020509@codemonkey.ws> <4AC67326.6080603@gmx.net> <20091003150803.GF17326@redhat.com> <20091003173252.1061.qmail@stuge.se> <13426df10910031040y5029dc31m8c6ca4a4bac098a6@mail.gmail.com> <2a50f7880910031513u713f7d52xc95847e9b248964b@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:19:07 +0200 Message-Id: <1254608347.12717.12.camel@tetris> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jordan Justen Cc: Anthony Liguori , Gleb Natapov , Coreboot , Carl-Daniel Hailfinger , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ron minnich Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 15:13 -0700 schrieb Jordan Justen: > I'll admit that this is a fairly dumb argument to make while we are > talking about a QEMU release only a few months from now. But, as UEFI > seems to be gaining ground in the industry, I think the sooner QEMU > can get this support, the better. This smells like self-fulfulling prophecy: Let QEmu support EFI in the hope that EFI actually gains ground (for example by better testability due to available emulation environments) So you want QEmu as a marketing device - nothing wrong with saying that, right? Regards, Patrick