Re: Where should the vhost-user specification live?

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:39 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:32:11PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote:
> > >  But also because, in my opinion, separating
> > > the specification would improve development agility by decoupling
> > > specification development from QEMU's review and release cycles.
> >
> > Generally for QEMU this will be less agility, unless I misunderstand
> > what is proposed)
> >
> > Because presumably there will need to be spec releases then?
> >
> > So
> >         new feature -> spec tree -> spec release -> qemu implementation -> qemu release
> >
> > is surely longer that what we have now.
> 
> I see your point.
> 
> However, we do not really need to introduce a heavy release management
> layer. We could just operate it as a living document, where the main
> branch is the authoritative source of truth.
> 
> For the workflow, development doesn't have to be strictly sequential
> either. A contributor can propose the spec update while working on the
> implementation, much like we do for VirtIO updates. Actually, this way
> one update/change supports the other.
> 
> I guess my point is that a dedicated repository could lower the
> barrier for new changes AND keep QEMU's own development speed mostly
> unaffected.
> 
> BR,
> Albert

Something something submodule? Possibly. If you want to make progress
on this, pls think of the process, try it out.

> >
> > Whether there will be more agility for non qemu users will depend on
> > how often spec releases are cut.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > MST
> >