Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:36:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Kiszka writes ("[Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion"):
> > What is more critical, IMHO, is that there are the resources
> > (maintainer time) to review and give concrete feedback on patches as
> > long as they are "fresh". Otherwise, a tracker will just shift the
> > work around.
> 
> Quite.  I think that the key problem we have at the moment is lack of
> maintainer time, not lack of appropriate tools.
> 
> > Another remark: If potential new maintainers should be affiliated with
> > any of the, to some degree, competing QEMU "accelerators" Xen and KVM, I
> > would be happy to see a public agreement beforehand on the general
> > architectural roadmap to cover those two requirement domains (+ the one
> > of KQEMU) in the future QEMU design. It would be bad for this project if
> > one side overrules the other via the (non-technical) preference of a
> > maintainer. Really, that's nothing against Ian personally or against
> > Xen/Citrix, the same would apply to KVM/Qumranet!
> 
> I replied to this in my other message, but once again:  I think
> actually that the Xen people and the KVM people will get on fine.

Alot of them are even the same people :-) Getting Xen and KVM more closely
following QEMU would be a huge benefit to everyone involved in all three
projects.

It is in no one's interests to maintain forked code long term - I feel the 
pain having to deal with security updates for Fedora - the last one needed
me to modify & release 9 different RPMs - 3 KVM, 3 QEMU and 3 Xen RPMs,
all with subtlely different versions of the code.


Daniel.
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|