qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: add a MAINTAINERS entry for migratio


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: add a MAINTAINERS entry for migration
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:50:03 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13

On 11/15/2011 03:36 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 14.11.2011 22:08, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 11/14/2011 11:40 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>   wrote:
I think this is an accurate reflection of the state of migration today.  This
is the second release in a row where we're scrambling to fix a critical issue
in migration.

We need to make our mind about it.

Ultimately, we need to make migration a priority.  That's what I'm trying to do
here.

When you make everything a priority, being a priority doesn't have much
of a meaning any more. Our current priorities are changing the entire
device model, the monitor, migration, turning the block layer upside
down - what's left? Okay, maybe vvfat and slirp.

Well, think of it as employment insurance :-)


The first step is to be open about the state of migration today.  I personally
don't have the bandwidth to invest a lot of effort in migration, but I can
invest time in trying to find more people to work on migration, and help put
together a proper roadmap.

We need to outline and document what we support and what we don't support.  We
need to invest in a test infrastructure.  We need a roadmap that we can
reasonably execute on.  In short, we need to turn migration into a first class
subsystem.

It's not about any single person or any single patch series.  It's about
deciding that migration is an important feature and deserves more focus and
attention.

I don't doubt that everyone will agree with this. The harder question is
who should concentrate less on which other feature to have time to spend
for migration.

I don't think it's a question of trading patches in one subsystem for patches in another subsystem.

I think it's more about having a planned, concerted effort, that systematically tackles the problems we're facing in migration.

By spending more time planning, it makes it much easier for people to contribute. There's a lot of interest in migration. If we made it easier to participate in improving it, I'm sure we would attract at least a few more people to working on it.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


Kevin





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]