From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ewA-0004iT-UF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:25:03 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ew9-0004fN-AT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:25:02 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34791 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ew8-0004eR-Pj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.243]:11532) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3ew8-0003i3-N2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so677206and.130 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4845C4AD.9040000@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:24:45 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion 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> <18501.6823.92589.960622@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603110346.GC25740@shareable.org> <18501.14842.2805.868161@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <18501.14842.2805.868161@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Ian Jackson wrote: > Jamie Lokier writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion"): > >> A private mail to Fabrice may be in order, if you're interested in >> core maintenance. Try to involve KVM folks too, that way lies sanity. >> > > Quite. I'll mail Fabrice - but generally I prefer to do things in > public where possible because it can avoid some political problems. > I can't stress this enough so I'll say it again. More committers isn't going to magically fix things. We need more people reviewing patches. >> I agree, and the same applies to KVM's QEMU branch, but perhaps that >> diverges less than Xen's. >> > > I've had a brief look at it but I haven't a clear idea of the amount > of divergence in the KVM branch. > Xen is really a fundamental fork. Quite a lot has been removed from the tree and there are some major architectural changes (like the map-cache, and the different save/restore formats). KVM tries very hard to remain true to QEMU. Patches that aren't directly related to KVM support are required to go to qemu-devel. I think the one day, Xen could use an upstream QEMU for it's device model, but that's going to require significant changes in how Xen does things. We have a fair bit of clean-up work to do in order to get things upstream but we'll get there. There's nothing preventing the KVM changes from going into upstream QEMU AFAIK other than our lack of focus on doing that. We're working on it though. Regards, Anthony Liguori