From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3Vw0-0003Fa-Tm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:48:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3Vvz-0003Dl-V9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:48:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54134 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3Vvz-0003Da-Qu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:48:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50001) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3Vw0-0007yC-1c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:48:16 -0400 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m53CmEvX007773 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:48:14 -0400 Received: from file.fab.redhat.com (file.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.6]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m53CmEE9003126 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:48:14 -0400 Received: (from berrange@localhost) by file.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m53CmDh2003630 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:48:13 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:48:13 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion Message-ID: <20080603124813.GK1227@redhat.com> References: <193307.64140.qm@web57014.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <18501.3725.422151.796839@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603100036.GA25740@shareable.org> <87F66ED9-C3F7-4E2F-BA75-2522B03A1E00@web.de> <48452663.8090506@siemens.com> <18501.15035.278670.542982@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18501.15035.278670.542982@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , 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 On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Kiszka writes ("[Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion"): > > What is more critical, IMHO, is that there are the resources > > (maintainer time) to review and give concrete feedback on patches as > > long as they are "fresh". Otherwise, a tracker will just shift the > > work around. > > Quite. I think that the key problem we have at the moment is lack of > maintainer time, not lack of appropriate tools. > > > Another remark: If potential new maintainers should be affiliated with > > any of the, to some degree, competing QEMU "accelerators" Xen and KVM, I > > would be happy to see a public agreement beforehand on the general > > architectural roadmap to cover those two requirement domains (+ the one > > of KQEMU) in the future QEMU design. It would be bad for this project if > > one side overrules the other via the (non-technical) preference of a > > maintainer. Really, that's nothing against Ian personally or against > > Xen/Citrix, the same would apply to KVM/Qumranet! > > I replied to this in my other message, but once again: I think > actually that the Xen people and the KVM people will get on fine. Alot of them are even the same people :-) Getting Xen and KVM more closely following QEMU would be a huge benefit to everyone involved in all three projects. It is in no one's interests to maintain forked code long term - I feel the pain having to deal with security updates for Fedora - the last one needed me to modify & release 9 different RPMs - 3 KVM, 3 QEMU and 3 Xen RPMs, all with subtlely different versions of the code. Daniel. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|