On 03/22/2010 07:39 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/22/2010 07:27 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
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.
qemu has non-Linux developers. Not all of their contributions are relevant
to kvm but some are. If we pull qemu into tools/kvm, we lose them.
Qemu had very few developers before KVM made use of it - i know it because i
followed the project prior KVM.
No argument.
So whatever development activitity Qemu has today, it's 99% [WAG] attributable
to KVM. It might have non-Linux contributors, but they wouldnt be there if it
wasnt for all the Linux contributors ...
Furthermore, those contributors wouldnt have to leave - they could simply use
a different Git URI ...
tools/kvm would drop support for non-Linux hosts, for tcg, and for
architectures which kvm doesn't support ("clean and minimal"). That
would be the real win, not sharing the repository. But those other
contributors would just stay with the original qemu.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
