From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HRrLz-0003WV-EZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:54:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HRrLv-0003Vp-RW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:54:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRrLv-0003Vm-OV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:54:51 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HRrKu-0007G7-Jq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:53:48 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: This project needs a stable branch Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:53:44 +0000 References: <200703151111.04453.jseward@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <200703151111.04453.jseward@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703151453.44831.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Subsequent releases of the branch would contain no functionality > enhancements, but just bug fixes, with the eventual aim of achieving > 'it just works' status for any x86/x86_64 guest I try to install/run. > I know that's a tall order, and that 0.9.0 may not be able to supply > that for all guests. But it is an important goal to strive for. While I agree stability is a desirable goal, and there is obviously users w= ant=20 a stable product, I'm not sure a qemu is mature enough to make a stable=20 branch worthwhile. Especially considering the very limited technical=20 resources we have available. > I am writing to propose that a stable branch be made from the 0.9.0 > release point. =A0The aim would be to maximise stability for (IMO) the > subset of functionality that has the largest potential user base: > i386-softmmu + Accelerator and x86_64-softmmu + Accelerator, but > excluding -kernel-kqemu due to limitations described in > http://qemu.org/kqemu-doc.html#SEC7. Whereas I think the single easiest way to increase the user base would be t= o=20 merge the kvm patches. Definitely not something suitable for a stable branc= h. > My impression is that (at least as I perceive it) the lack of emphasis > on maximising stability on a stable branch, and the lack of a bug > tracker, is artificially restricting QEMU's user base, and therefore > indirectly its long term prospects. This is a shame, because QEMU is > a very remarkable and useful project, which should be used (and > usable) by everybody and anybody. A bug tracker doesn't help unless you've got someone who triages, monitors = and=20 eventually fixes those bugs. There is a bug tracker on savannah, but noone= =20 has the time or motivation to use it. Are you volunteering to maintain this stable branch, and look after the bug= =20 tracker? Paul