On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:49 AM Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >
> How's that? He has been asked to split the linux-user stuff from the target > skeleton stuff. ... > This argument would make more sense if there were more present here than a > skeleton. Speaking about anatomy, I am opposed to upstreaming any "skeletons". The other month, another community was dead serious wanting to upstream code based on "proposal of the draft" (or was it "draft of the proposal"), and now we want to upstream "skeletons"?? And even that "skeleton" can't be regularly built stage by stage, but must resort to "enable configure at the end" cheap tricks? What happened to QEMU upstream? If this is really just a skeleton that can't be organized in a decent patch series that actually builds, my recommendation to Taylor is simply to postpone upstreaming until the skeleton is made stronger, all bones are in their right place, and the full body is ready - what is the point/purpose of having such a skeleton in QEMU upstream? I am slightly disappointed that after a slick presentation on KVM Forum, we now talk about a "skeleton". Yours, Aleksandar
