On 12 March 2012 20:12, Stefan Weil wrote:
> We also need more resources for technical maintenance of the
> QEMU infrastructure. For example, the official mirror of the
> QEMU git repository (https://github.com/qemu/QEMU) is several
> months behind, http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/qemu.git is
> e
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 14:41, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 09:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> On 03/13/2012 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/13/2012 08:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> I agree that more maintain
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 13:40, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
>>> more people with commit rights.
>>
>> I disagree strongly. Having multiple pushers makes things difficult
>> and encourages peopl
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:01, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 01:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Take Blue's recent target-ppc fix
>>> 9d4df9c02866f39d3eef105033091f367cc7c29e for example: After applying
>>> patches on day one of FOSDEM he p
Am 14.03.2012 15:17, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/14/2012 08:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 14 March 2012 13:52, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
What I have wondered is, is there any semantic difference between
"Ack",
"Acked", "ACK" an
On 03/14/2012 08:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 14 March 2012 13:52, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
What I have wondered is, is there any semantic difference between "Ack",
"Acked", "ACK" and "Acked-by: name"? I.e., when someone replies
with "Ack", should
On 14 March 2012 13:52, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> What I have wondered is, is there any semantic difference between "Ack",
>> "Acked", "ACK" and "Acked-by: name"? I.e., when someone replies
>> with "Ack", should one document that as an Acked-by for a
On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 13.03.2012 14:27, schrieb Avi Kivity:
On 03/12/2012 08:18 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
* Reviewed-by: Full Name
A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate
modification without any remaining serious techn
Am 13.03.2012 14:27, schrieb Avi Kivity:
> On 03/12/2012 08:18 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>
>>> * Reviewed-by: Full Name
>>>
>>> A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
>>> appropriate
>>> modification without any remaining serious technical issues. Any
>>> inte
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 17:31, schrieb Andreas Färber:
>
>> Am 13.03.2012 11:41, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Maybe every maintainer
Am 13.03.2012 17:31, schrieb Andreas Färber:
Am 13.03.2012 11:41, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Maybe every maintainer can maintain a short summary of
what he maintains, how (s)he does it (repositor
Am 13.03.2012 11:41, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
>> Maybe every maintainer can maintain a short summary of
>> what he maintains, how (s)he does it (repository, expected
>> response time, ...) in
On 03/13/2012 08:57 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 04:49 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>
>>> Not at all. I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch --
>>> it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch
>>> pull request. There's no material difference bet
On 03/13/2012 04:49 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >
> > Not at all. I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch --
> > it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch
> > pull request. There's no material difference between sending a patch
> > and sending a pull
On 13 March 2012 14:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Right, if we want urgency on something, there has to be a filterable
> keyword. I don't read every single message on qemu-devel every hour of the
> day.
Yes, this is where we came in when I suggested some kind of
qemu-urgent or urgent tag...
> Th
Am 13.03.2012 14:50, schrieb Avi Kivity:
> On 03/13/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are
>>> "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of
>>> what's important and what's not important.
>>
>> I don't
On 13.03.2012, at 15:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 09:39 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/13/2012 04:12 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> (plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty
> much guaranteed to slow things down).
Having the committers process all thes
On 03/13/2012 09:39 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/13/2012 04:12 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
(plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty
much guaranteed to slow things down).
Having the committers process all these patches (and monitor all
patches) is guaranteed to slow things down too
On 03/13/2012 09:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/13/2012 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
more people with commit rights.
I disagree strongly.
On 03/13/2012 04:12 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> (plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty
> >> much guaranteed to slow things down).
> >
> > Having the committers process all these patches (and monitor all
> > patches) is guaranteed to slow things down too.
>
> They're in the loop
On 03/13/2012 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 08:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
more people with commit rights.
>>>
>>> I disagree strongly. Having multiple pushers
On 13 March 2012 13:50, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Not at all. I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch --
> it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch
> pull request. There's no material difference between sending a patch
> and sending a pull request (except
On 03/13/2012 08:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
more people with commit rights.
I disagree strongly. Having multiple pushers makes things difficult
and encourages people to push without test
On 03/13/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are
> > "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of
> > what's important and what's not important.
>
> I don't think we've had huge problems with defining
On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
>> more people with commit rights.
>
> I disagree strongly. Having multiple pushers makes things difficult
> and encourages people to push without testing. Part of what makes
> pushing
On 03/12/2012 08:18 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > * Reviewed-by: Full Name
> >
> > A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
> > appropriate
> > modification without any remaining serious technical issues. Any
> > interested
> > reviewer (who has done the w
Il 13/03/2012 12:27, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> >
>> > Point taken.
>> > However maintainers should also be responsible of reviewing patches of
>> > "infrequent write-only contributors".
> Yes, but maintainers are overloaded because they also need to review
> patches of frequent write-only contribu
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 18:34, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
> >>> rather I
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > OK, so the actual problem seems to be that not all the source files that
> > are supposed to be Supported are actually supported.
> > And of course some key files, like savevm.c are not even Maintained!!
> > For example if I am not mistaken we are mis
Am 12.03.2012 18:34, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
>>> rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Michael Roth wrote:
> Thanks Stefano. I plan on doing a lot of work with migration in the
> future, and as such try to keep tabs on the migration-related stuff on
> qemu-devel. I often don't get around to actually reviewing things
> though, and that's been nagging me for a whil
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
> Maybe every maintainer can maintain a short summary of
> what he maintains, how (s)he does it (repository, expected
> response time, ...) in the QEMU wiki. I just added
> http://wiki.qemu.org/C
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
>>> better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
>>> sweeping up tri
Am 12.03.2012 19:03, schrieb Lluís Vilanova:
> Stefano Stabellini writes:
> [...]
>> Patches are being posted to the list that don't get any reviews at all.
>> Other patches get reviewed the first time, then once they are reposted
>> they don't get any other reviews or acked-by or reviewed-by.
>
>
On 13 March 2012 00:16, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I think this is a good demonstration of what the problem is. Unclear
> responsibility. I'm pretty sure that Blue thought that Alex would handle
> the patch. I'm pretty sure that Alex thought Blue would handle the patch.
Yes, this is why I sugges
Is there a core group/committee that handles all fixes, code, and what not?
On 3/12/12, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.03.2012 um 02:01 schrieb Andreas Färber :
>
>> Am 13.03.2012 01:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Take Blue's recent target
On 03/12/2012 09:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 13.03.2012 um 02:39 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 08:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Let's take a real world example from Linux here. 3.3-rc5 had a pretty nasty
compile bug that made the build break on any 32 bit target when autofs wa
Am 13.03.2012 um 02:39 schrieb Anthony Liguori :
> On 03/12/2012 08:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let's take a real world example from Linux here. 3.3-rc5 had a pretty nasty
>> compile bug that made the build break on any 32 bit target when autofs was
>> activated. I posted the bug p
On 03/12/2012 08:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Let's take a real world example from Linux here. 3.3-rc5 had a pretty nasty
compile bug that made the build break on any 32 bit target when autofs was
activated. I posted the bug plus a small bugfix upstream.
We have a different model than Linux
Am 13.03.2012 um 02:01 schrieb Andreas Färber :
> Am 13.03.2012 01:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Take Blue's recent target-ppc fix
>>> 9d4df9c02866f39d3eef105033091f367cc7c29e for example: After applying
>>> patches on day one of FOSDEM he post
Am 13.03.2012 01:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Take Blue's recent target-ppc fix
>> 9d4df9c02866f39d3eef105033091f367cc7c29e for example: After applying
>> patches on day one of FOSDEM he posted a -Werror fix, it got confirmed
>> by me and Alex but
Am 13.03.2012 um 01:16 schrieb Anthony Liguori :
> On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 12.03.2012 22:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> On 03/12/2012 04:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>>
On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 22:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 04:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
[...] There a many examples of
urgent patches (= patches which fix br
Am 12.03.2012 22:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/12/2012 04:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
[...] There a many examples of
urgent patches (= patches which fix broken builds) which take
seve
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 04:43 PM, malc wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday. That's pretty
> > > much
> > > one business day.
> > >
> > > For a problem that affects very few people
On 03/12/2012 04:41 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 22:13, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter
On 03/12/2012 04:43 PM, malc wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday. That's pretty much
one business day.
For a problem that affects very few people (and hence has very few people
complaining), it seems like a reasonable respon
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > > On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 22:13, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori
wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
I agree that that's a spec
Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
We also need more resources for technical maintenance of the
QEMU infrastructure. For example, the official mirror of the
QEMU git repository (https://github.com/qemu/QEMU) is several
months behind, http://
On 03/12/2012 04:16 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori wrote:
In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was
reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.
Commit 02021812452 (patch reported March 2nd, applied March 9th)
is
On 03/12/2012 04:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a prob
On 12 March 2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was
> reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.
Commit 02021812452 (patch reported March 2nd, applied March 9th)
is more recent than that.
I think a couple of d
On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
better in. It
Am 12.03.2012 21:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
preventing
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
> > > > better in. It seems to me tha
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
sweeping up trivial patches has been w
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
>> better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
>> sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we
>> could use a s
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:24:47PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Only two maintainers are allowed to make full use of the patchwork
> > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/) infrastructure.
> > Why not all maintainers?
>
> I tried to get myself added to the maintainers list (with
> a
On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:12, Stefan Weil wrote:
I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
more people with commit rights. Why? There a many examples of
urgent patches (= patches which fix broken builds) which take
several days even whe
On 03/12/2012 03:12 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
preventing us and other people from having a good experie
On 12 March 2012 20:12, Stefan Weil wrote:
> I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need
> more people with commit rights. Why? There a many examples of
> urgent patches (= patches which fix broken builds) which take
> several days even when they were reviewed before they finally
Am 12.03.2012 18:06, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
preventing us and other people from having a good experience working
upstream with QEMU. Call it cons
On 03/12/2012 02:39 PM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
[...]
My understanding until now was that both Acked-by and Reviewed-by were tags
reserved to people with privileges to write into the repository.
That's interesting feedback. These are all documented throughly in Linux's
Anthony Liguori writes:
[...]
>> My understanding until now was that both Acked-by and Reviewed-by were tags
>> reserved to people with privileges to write into the repository.
> That's interesting feedback. These are all documented throughly in Linux's
> SubmittingPatches (which I think ours ref
On 03/12/2012 02:21 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
"infrequent write-only contributors".
I certainly do it for the areas I am a maintainer of, and in general we
try to do it on xen-devel. Overall I think we are mostly succeeding even
though admittedly
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:06:15PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
> rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
> preventing us and other people from having a good experience working
> upstr
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>> "infrequent write-only contributors".
> >>>
> >>> I certainly do it for the areas I am a maintainer of, and in general we
> >>> try to do it on xen-devel. Overall I think we are mostly succeeding even
> >>> though admittedly the traffic is lower tha
On 03/12/2012 02:10 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 12:34 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 12:34 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
> >>> ra
On 03/12/2012 12:34 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
prev
On 03/12/2012 01:03 PM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Stefano Stabellini writes:
[...]
Patches are being posted to the list that don't get any reviews at all.
Other patches get reviewed the first time, then once they are reposted
they don't get any other reviews or acked-by or reviewed-by.
What are th
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes:
> [...]
> > Patches are being posted to the list that don't get any reviews at all.
> > Other patches get reviewed the first time, then once they are reposted
> > they don't get any other reviews or acked-by or reviewed-by.
>
Stefano Stabellini writes:
[...]
> Patches are being posted to the list that don't get any reviews at all.
> Other patches get reviewed the first time, then once they are reposted
> they don't get any other reviews or acked-by or reviewed-by.
What are the different tags available and what is their
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
> > rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
> > preventing us and other people from havi
On 03/12/2012 12:06 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
preventing us and other people from having a good experience working
upstream with QEMU. Call it con
Hi all,
I don't mean to steer any controversy or start any flame wars here, but
rather I want to point out a problem in the QEMU Community that is
preventing us and other people from having a good experience working
upstream with QEMU. Call it constructive criticism.
Patches are being posted to th
77 matches
Mail list logo
