From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HTmka-0006Vx-V9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:24:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HTmkZ-0006VH-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:24:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTmkZ-0006VE-AV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:24:15 -0500 Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HTmiw-0006rW-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:22:35 -0400 From: Julian Seward Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: This project needs a stable branch Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:19:45 +0000 References: <200703151111.04453.jseward@acm.org> <200703151453.44831.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200703151453.44831.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703202219.46063.jseward@acm.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thursday 15 March 2007 14:53, Paul Brook wrote: > > 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 > want a stable product, I'm not sure a qemu is mature enough to make a > stable branch worthwhile. Especially considering the very limited > technical resources we have available. Limited effort is always a problem, granted. So here's a broader question, which I'm surprised nobody has asked before (afaik). Think forward to a hypothetical QEMU 1.0 release. What criteria are required for such a release? J