From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsIhl-0004pd-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:59:29 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsIhj-0004og-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:59:28 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35049 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsIhj-0004ob-2i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:59:27 -0400 Received: from 2.mail-out.ovh.net ([91.121.26.226]:56736) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KsIhi-0003vN-2m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:59:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:57:58 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] release date of qemu 0.9.2? Message-ID: <20081021145758.GA32412@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <48FDD9DD.4010906@codemonkey.ws> <20081021143834.GA29344@networkno.de> <48FDEC73.4000908@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FDEC73.4000908@codemonkey.ws> 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 On 09:51 Tue 21 Oct , Anthony Liguori wrote: > Thiemo Seufer wrote: >> Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> C.W. Betts wrote: >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> When will qemu be given the status of 0.9.2? I was browsing the >>>> source code of the Qemu that ships with OpenSuSE and noticed that >>>> there are a lot of patches. It would probably be helpful if there >>>> was a release that didn't depend on GCC 4. >>>> >>>> Also, what targets still depend on dyngen? And is anyone working >>>> on porting them to TCG? >>>> >>> A lot of previously supported hosts are no longer supported with TCG. >>> I would think adding those hosts would be more important than >>> completing the TCG conversion before cutting a new release. >>> >> >> I disagree. The most important hosts are supported, the other hosts >> were largely experimental anyway, and getting rid of dyngen / gcc3 >> is IMHO worth a release. >> > > Personally, I'd like to see much more frequent releases (every 3-6 > months). I'm okay with not having complete features (like the > dyngen->TCG conversion) or host regressions because I think there's > value in having releases regularly compared to feature based releases. > > What do other people think? I'd be willing to do the leg work of releases. I agree with you I think that the kernel way of release is good and can be used for qemu Best Regards, J.