From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQqRI-0003c0-Kn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQqRE-0003ZG-26 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47084 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MQqRD-0003Z0-QI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:37605) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MQqRD-0000pN-Ck for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f220.google.com ([209.85.217.220]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MQqRC-0003jL-BI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:26 -0400 Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so17041713gxk.10 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A5D05D0.4030004@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:25:20 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qdev merge plans? References: <4A5CFD47.7050803@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5CFD47.7050803@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > Your queue continues bitrotting. BlueSwirl did more qdev conversions > with the result that more fixups are needed to make the tree build > again once your queue is pushed ... > > For now I did incremental fixups and didn't change the patches you > have queued up already. At least for the build failure this isn't > ideal though as it leaves a few revisions which don't build which is > bad for bisecting. > > So what is your plan to handle the mess^H^H^H^Hmerge? Early in your series, you introduce -device. But -device syntax doesn't seem to be resolved yet. I don't think it's appropriate to pull in -device this close to the feature freeze when the command line syntax is still being debated. You only countered Paul's suggestions this morning so I don't think there's any indication that this discussion has converged yet. Quite a lot of your queue consists of things you've only posted as Proof-of-concept series (like qdev/isa). So let me ask you, what is the set of patches that you think is non-contended, posted as a non-RFC, but not yet merged? Regards, Anthony Liguori