From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MmrKq-0000PO-Lf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:49:52 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MmrKm-0000Ls-4b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:49:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33563 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MmrKl-0000LV-TO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:49:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25902) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MmrKl-0008MT-7W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:49:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4AAD1496.3080204@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:49:42 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained? References: <20090902074905.GB25711@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20090909121817.GA21997@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <4AA7A6EC.10907@codemonkey.ws> <20090910070336.GD3351@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AA90592.7080100@codemonkey.ws> <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> <4AA92122.3050103@codemonkey.ws> <4AA924AE.8060807@redhat.com> <4AA927D8.7000900@codemonkey.ws> <4AA92ADF.80003@redhat.com> <1252607396.3403.57.camel@blaa> <4AA9481D.1090508@redhat.com> <4AA95402.5010205@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4AA95402.5010205@codemonkey.ws> 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: Anthony Liguori Cc: Amit Shah , Mark McLoughlin , Bernhard Kauer , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 09/10/2009 10:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> For qemu.git I'd agree since it's undergoing a lot of churn. >> Unfortunately it also feeds qemu-kvm.git which I try very hard to >> keep regression-free (and finding and fixing regressions during a >> merge is quite horrible), so I'd really appreciate it if qemu.git >> quality didn't deteriorate. > > Or more accurately, you'd prefer if there were no bugs in qemu so that > you only had to deal with the bugs that were introduced in qemu-kvm. Yes. Anyone who pulls qemu.git and develops or uses it would agree. > > That would be nice for you of course :-) But it's unrealistic to > compare the two. > $ git log --since='1 Month ago' --no-merges qemu-kvm/master > --committer='Avi Kivity' --pretty=format:'%an' | wc -l > 5 > $ git log --since='1 Month ago' --no-merges qemu-kvm/master > --committer='Marcelo Tosatti' --pretty=format:'%an' | wc -l > 5 > > $ git log --since='1 Month ago' --no-merges origin/master > --committer='Anthony Liguori' --pretty=format:'%an' | wc -l > 251 > > So there are going to be at least 25x more regressions introduced from > upstream qemu than what are introduced in qemu-kvm. Well, if we define a regression as something that blocks me from pushing (kvm-autotest), then both numbers are zero. Of course qemu.git is not run purely for my enjoyment, but a large number of patches are targeted at qemu-kvm.git. Further, the tests that I run (installing and booting some popular OSes) are really the basic minimum functionality, nothing fancy there. > >> (and we're quite far from catching every regression btw). >> >> Anthony, how long are your test cycles? > > Depends on the number of regressions. I can usually get through > testing in 4-5 hours when everything works. Everything usually > doesn't work though. We definitely need to improve this and the 80% reject rate. Can you start being a lot noisier about rejects? that will at least give some visibility into the problem. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function