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

[Ian Jackson]

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.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing many more of the KVM changes
appearing as proposals and patches here, when we have an effective
system for getting such things discussed, reviewed, and committed.

Ian.