On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:22:28PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] Basically the reason of the oProfile failure is a disfunctional > > community. [...] > > Caused by: repository separation and the inevitable code and social fork a > decade later. No, the split-repository situation was the smallest problem after all. Its was a community thing. If the community doesn't work a single-repo project will also fail. Look at the state of the alpha arch in Linux today, it is maintained in one repository but nobody really cares about it. Thus it is miles behine most other archs Linux supports today in quality and feature completeness. > What you fail to realise (or what you fail to know, you werent around when > Oprofile was written, i was) is that Oprofile _did_ have a functional single > community when it was written. The tooling and the kernel bits was written by > the same people. Yes, this was probably the time when everybody was enthusiastic about the feature and they could attract lots of developers. But situation changed over time. > So i dont see much of a difference to the Oprofile situation really and i see > many parallels. I also see similar kinds of desktop usability problems. The difference is that KVM has a working community with good developers and maintainers. > The difference is that we dont have KVM with a decade of history and we dont > have a 'told you so' KVM reimplementation to show that proves the point. I > guess it's a matter of time before that happens, because Qemu usability is so > absymal today - so i guess we should suspend any discussions until that > happens, no need to waste time on arguing hypoteticals. We actually have lguest which is small. But it lacks functionality and the developer community KVM has attracted. > I think you are rationalizing the status quo. I see that there are issues with KVM today in some areas. You pointed out the desktop usability already. I personally have trouble with the qem-kvm.git because it is unbisectable. But repository unification doesn't solve the problem here. The point for a single repository is that it simplifies the development process. I agree with you here. But the current process of KVM is not too difficult after all. I don't have to touch qemu sources for most of my work on KVM. > It's as if you argued in 1990 that the unification of East and West Germany > wouldnt make much sense because despite clear problems and incompatibilites > and different styles westerners were still allowed to visit eastern relatives > and they both spoke the same language after all ;-) Um, hmm. I don't think these situations have enough in common to compare them ;-) Joerg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
