Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion

[Anthony Liguori]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jamie Lokier writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion"):
>   
> > A private mail to Fabrice may be in order, if you're interested in
> > core maintenance.  Try to involve KVM folks too, that way lies sanity.
> >     
>
> Quite.  I'll mail Fabrice - but generally I prefer to do things in
> public where possible because it can avoid some political problems.
>   

I can't stress this enough so I'll say it again.  More committers isn't 
going to magically fix things.  We need more people reviewing patches.


> > I agree, and the same applies to KVM's QEMU branch, but perhaps that
> > diverges less than Xen's.
> >     
>
> I've had a brief look at it but I haven't a clear idea of the amount
> of divergence in the KVM branch.
>   

Xen is really a fundamental fork.  Quite a lot has been removed from the 
tree and there are some major architectural changes (like the map-cache, 
and the different save/restore formats).  KVM tries very hard to remain 
true to QEMU.  Patches that aren't directly related to KVM support are 
required to go to qemu-devel.  I think the one day, Xen could use an 
upstream QEMU for it's device model, but that's going to require 
significant changes in how Xen does things.

We have a fair bit of clean-up work to do in order to get things 
upstream but we'll get there.

There's nothing preventing the KVM changes from going into upstream QEMU 
AFAIK other than our lack of focus on doing that.  We're working on it 
though.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori