* Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Frank, > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In your very previous paragraphs, you enumerate two separate causes: > > "repository structure" and "development/maintenance process" as being > > sources of "fun". ?Please simply accept that the former is considered > > by many as absolutely trivial compared to the latter, and additional > > verbose repetition of your thesis will not change this. > > I can accept that many people consider it trivial but the problem is that we > have _real data_ on kmemtrace and now perf that the amount of contributors > is significantly smaller when your code is outside the kernel repository. > Now admittedly both of them are pretty intimate with the kernel but Ingo's > suggestion of putting kvm-qemu in tools/ is an interesting idea > nevertheless. Correct. > It's kinda funny to see people argue that having an external repository is > not a problem and that it's not a big deal if building something from the > repository is slightly painful as long as it doesn't require a PhD when we > have _real world_ experience that it _does_ limit developer base in some > cases. Whether or not that applies to kvm remains to be seen but I've yet to > see a convincing argument why it doesn't. Yeah. Also, if in fact the claim that the 'repository does not matter' is true then it doesnt matter that it's hosted in tools/kvm/ either, right? I.e. it's a win-win situation. Worst-case nothing happens beyond a Git URI change. Best-case the project is propelled to never seen heights due to contribution advantages not contemplated and not experienced by the KVM guys before ... Ingo -- 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
