On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:11:24AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > Maybe someone will chime in to prove me wrong, but what if the situation is > that there's no active maintainer, and no active users? Then it truly _is_ > serving no purpose, and IMO even advertising it is actively harmful since it > may lead users down a dead end path > > Removing a driver doesn't need to be the end either... if someone motivated > shows up they can always revive the old code > If the code is removed, it will no longer be kept up to date with internal libvirt APIs and concepts and latest compiler warning workarounds, so the work of getting it up to date would be on this motivated person. That could make the motivation disappear rather quickly :) Jan > ...now that I do some more targeted searches looking for patches, looks like > someone from bull.net did try to massively expand the hyperv driver a few > years back, but it was an awkward code dump: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-October/msg00257.html > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list