* Pekka Enberg <penb...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <f...@redhat.com> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
