On 07/22/15 11:05, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 07/21/15 18:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 21/07/2015 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> or work >>> with others to add upstream maintainers. >> >> When we can't get the maintainer's attention for our patches, and when >> the maintainer tends to rewrite even those patches he more or less >> likes, how do you propose we convince him to give *push access* to >> random people? >> >>> I see that Hannes Reinecke >>> also has patches on ipxe-devel that look ignored, so Gred and Laszlo >>> are not the only ones struggling to get patches upstream into ipxe. >> >> I've said it several times (on other lists too), and I'll say it again: >> ipxe is not an "open process" community project at this point. The last >> half year, as Paolo indicated, and as I proved above, has been ample >> experience. > > I understand the frustration with upstream. Thanks for posting a > summary of stranded patch series, it helped explain that. > > The reason I'm suggesting reaching out to Michael Brown is that the > downstream repo will only be an "open process" for us virtualization > developers. It won't have a user community, support, or help improve > the situation for non-virtualization developers - all things which > matter for a healthy long-term open source project.
All the things upstream ipxe has been lacking for at least half a year now, without much indication that it could improve. > It may be simplest if Gerd maintains a QEMU downstream repository. I'm > not against that. But let's notify Michael Brown so he has a chance to > consider the problem. If you can reach out to Michael Brown, that would be highly appreciated. Personally I lost all hope. Thanks Laszlo
