From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53773)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WzJbo-0004hx-P6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:49:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WzJbg-0001YF-A8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:49:32 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61671)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WzJbg-0001Xx-2C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:49:24 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:49:47 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140624054947.GA25614@redhat.com>
References: <201406240908546812611@sangfor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201406240908546812611@sangfor.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [question] Will qemu-2.0.0 be a longterm stable
	branch?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Zhang Haoyu <zhanghy@sangfor.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:08:56AM +0800, Zhang Haoyu wrote:
> Hi, all
> 
> Which version is best for commercial product, qemu-2.0.0 or other versions?
> Any advices?
> 
> Thanks,
> Zhang Haoyu

Use one of the downstreams: Red Hat, Fedora, Debian all ship QEMU and
have active QEMU maintainers developing the distribution.

-- 
MST