On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:21:34AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:14 AM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 3/8/21 1:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:55:10PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > > >> On 08/03/2021 12.16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > >>> Hi Peter, > > >>> > > >>> +Markus/Paolo/Laurent/Richard > > >>> > > >>> On 3/8/21 11:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > >>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 10:09, Thomas Huth <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 07/03/2021 16.56, Warner Losh wrote: > > >>>>>> The FreeBSD project has a number of enhancements to bsd-user. Add > > myself > > >>>>>> as maintainer and Kyle Evans as a reviewer. Also add our github > > repo. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> --- > > >>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 5 ++++- > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > >>>>>> index 26c9454823..ec0e935038 100644 > > >>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS > > >>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > >>>>>> @@ -2896,9 +2896,12 @@ F: thunk.c > > >>>>>> F: accel/tcg/user-exec*.c > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> BSD user > > >>>>>> -S: Orphan > > >>>>>> +M: Warner Losh <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> +R: Kyle Evans <[email protected]> > > >>>>>> +S: Maintained > > >>>>>> F: bsd-user/ > > >>>>>> F: default-configs/targets/*-bsd-user.mak > > >>>>>> +T: git https://github.com/qemu-bsd-user/qemu-bsd-user > > bsd-user-rebase-3.1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> BSD is not really my home turf, but since nobody else picked this up > > and I > > >>>>> plan to send a pull request for a bunch of patches anyway this week, > > I can > > >>>>> also put it into my queue. > > >>>> > > >>>> Fine with me. (The v1 was in my to-review queue, but I'm currently > > >>>> running somewhat behind on processing patches.) > > >>> > > >>> This is a patch for mainstream QEMU, I'm having hard time > > >>> understanding the point of it. This is some official way > > >>> to say that BSD-user is not maintained in mainstream but > > >>> has to be used in the referred fork which is way different > > >>> that mainstream... > > >>> > > >>> I'd rather wait for more mainstream contributions from Warner > > >>> and Kyle, or blow the current orphan/dead code and import > > >>> bsd-user-rebase-3.1 adding the maintainer entries along, but > > >>> certainly not mark this dead code as maintained. > > >>> > > >>> Please convince me why I'm wrong, because I'd prefer NAck this > > >>> patch... > > >> > > >> The idea has been discussed here: > > >> > > >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-01/msg01399.html > > >> > > >> So this is not about declaring that bsd-user is maintained in a > > different > > >> repository, but about giving Warner et al. a chance to finally upstream > > >> their work. > > > > > > Yep, I think this change in MAINTAINERS file is primarily about > > signalling > > > intent for future > > > > Yes. Just so. We have the older fork that we're trying to port forward. If > people have changes as we do that, it sure would be nice to have them go > through us rather than create more conflict with the main tree. I don't > need to have a new set of conflicts with main because someone thought that > it would be a good idea to move the space before or after the '(' or after > in a bunch of files. It's just extra work if I have to do it as part of the > merging. Better that goes into the top of our queue so it's managed and > easy and a click on github than another half hour I have to spend sorting > that out when I'd rather be sorting out the substantial change that go on > upstream in other areas that legitimately do make things much better. > > We talked about all this in the above thread, I thought, and I thought it > was all settled, so I was rather surprised to wake up to this thread this > morning.
>From my POV, nothing has changed - I think the MAINTAINERS change is reasonable. > > > Marking the subsystem as maintained isn't saying the current code is > > great, > > > just that there is someone committed to improving it hereafter. > > > > OK, thank Thomas / Daniel for explaining and referring to the "BSD-user > > plans" (which I didn't notice earlier). > > > > Warner, what about mentioning your plans here in this patch? > > > > Where is there room in the MAINTAINERS file for that? How would you like me > to do that? I think he was just referring to mentioning the intention in the commit message. The MAINTAINERS file isn't a suitable place for describing plans. > > > If we want to warn people that the current impl isn't great, that's goes > > > back to the topic of having a way to classify QEMU features into quality > > > levels Tier 1/2/3. > > > > That indeed sounds good w.r.t. contributors / users expectations. > > > > I suppose 1=hw_accel/security, 2=tested, 3=rest? > > > > Not a single clue how to do that although. > > > > Yup. Why invent something new just to make it harder for me to get things > into the tree? There's already the tiered maintainer stuff, and I'm trying > to get our stuff that turn the current bsd-user that's crap into something > that's quite solid. ...snip... You don't have to worry about this - it is tangential to your patch here - a problem facing QEMU as a whole, not BSD specific, and there's no immediate answer here either. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
