Hi Andrew, > On 22 Jun 2022, at 17:28, Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22/06/2022 13:32, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> Hi Andrew and Christopher, >> >> I will not dig into the details of the issues you currently have >> but it seems you are trying to re-do the work we already did >> and have been using for quite a while. >> >> Currently we maintain the xtf on arm code in gitlab and we >> recently rebased it on the latest xtf master: >> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/bmarquis/xtf >> >> If possible I would suggest to start from there. > > Sorry to be blunt, but no. I've requested several times for that series > to be broken down into something which is actually reviewable, and > because that has not been done, I'm doing it at the fastest pace my > other priorities allow.
You have not requested anything, we have been asking for a year what we could do to help without getting any answer. > > Notice how 2/3 of the patches in the past year have been bits > specifically carved out of the ARM series, or improvements to prevent > the ARM series introducing technical debt. Furthermore, you've not > taken the "build ARM in CI" patch that I wrote specifically for you to > be part of the series, and you've got breakages to x86 from rebasing. Which patch ? Where ? There was no communication on anything like that. > > At this point, I am not interested in seeing any work which is not > morphing (and mostly pruning) the arm-wip branch down into a set of > clean build system modifications that can bootstrap the > as-minimal-as-I-can-make-it stub. You cannot expect us to poll on all the possible branches that you are creating and simply rework what we did when you do something on some branch. We went through what you requested using GitHub and asked you at almost all Xen Community Call what we could do to go further without getting any answer. You are not interested in us contributing to XTF, this is understood. Cheers Bertrand
