qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL for-2.4 0/7] update ipxe roms, fix efi support


From: Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL for-2.4 0/7] update ipxe roms, fix efi support
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:05:54 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/21/15 18:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On 21/07/2015 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > or work
> > with others to add upstream maintainers.
> 
> When we can't get the maintainer's attention for our patches, and when
> the maintainer tends to rewrite even those patches he more or less
> likes, how do you propose we convince him to give *push access* to
> random people?
> 
> > I see that Hannes Reinecke
> > also has patches on ipxe-devel that look ignored, so Gred and Laszlo
> > are not the only ones struggling to get patches upstream into ipxe.
> 
> I've said it several times (on other lists too), and I'll say it again:
> ipxe is not an "open process" community project at this point. The last
> half year, as Paolo indicated, and as I proved above, has been ample
> experience.

I understand the frustration with upstream.  Thanks for posting a
summary of stranded patch series, it helped explain that.

The reason I'm suggesting reaching out to Michael Brown is that the
downstream repo will only be an "open process" for us virtualization
developers.  It won't have a user community, support, or help improve
the situation for non-virtualization developers - all things which
matter for a healthy long-term open source project.

It may be simplest if Gerd maintains a QEMU downstream repository.  I'm
not against that.  But let's notify Michael Brown so he has a chance to
consider the problem.

Attachment: pgpClVdCsWKdI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

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