From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L8cHV-0002Eb-88 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:07:49 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L8cHU-0002DA-NS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:07:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46304 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L8cHU-0002Cv-Hi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:07:48 -0500 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.144]:10008) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L8cHU-0000gn-4N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:07:48 -0500 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so12411qwc.4 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:07:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5d6222a80812050707r4c6195eexfe6507b89c50ce63@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:07:46 -0200 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Modular qemu? In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0812050652p1608020fw93051708e7e95d14@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3056442136ca43729c6a2aec02c038aa.squirrel@www.boonen.name> <49393B8D.40209@codemonkey.ws> <761ea48b0812050652p1608020fw93051708e7e95d14@mail.gmail.com> 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 Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> With respect to the various forks of QEMU, I believe the real problem is >> that historically, people have had a tough time getting changes into QEMU. >> This is not just a matter of getting patches accepted, but also getting the >> appropriate guidance about how to refactor things to take into account all >> of the various architecture combinations that QEMU supports and some of the >> longer term efforts. >> >> I hope this situation is improving. If people have feedback in how things >> could be improved, I think everyone is eager to here it. Plugins are not >> the solution though. > > Sorry to say, but many forks are linux-user ones and qemu has no > maintainer for that. This might become even worse in the future > with, for instance, Nokia using qemu linux-user for the SDK of their > upcoming OMAP3 based tablet. We have no maintainer here, and there's a lot of people maintaining the forks all over. What's stoping those people from becoming maintainers of the linux-user architectures in upstream qemu? I believe this is part of what anthony is saying. The situation about how do we welcome new people improved by a large leap.