On 28 February 2018 at 11:53, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > With my 'upstream dev' hat on, I tend to be suspicious of this > line of argument, because in a lot of cases what tends to happen > is that the code for some new target or device goes in-tree, and > then the people who worked on submitting it disappear, or never > actually do get round to refactoring[*]. You get more leeway for > making this argument the longer you've been around and participating > in QEMU development, because then you have a track record of > following up on things.
That said, I can probably live with it in this particular instance, given when the 2.12 codefreeze deadline is. thanks -- PMM
