On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:45:01PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > On 07/06/19 10:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> >>
> >>> On 23/05/19 18:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> * Machine core (Eduardo, Marcel)
>
> query-machines,
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 07/06/19 10:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> On 23/05/19 18:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
* Machine core (Eduardo, Marcel)
query-machines, query-current-machine,
~60 lines. Hardly worthwhile from a "let's shrin
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 6/7/19 8:59 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [...]
>> QOM is not a particularly active subsystem now: 51 commits in two years.
>>
>> We obviously need maintainers to review and merge patches. The nominal
>> maintainer hasn't been doing that since 2015. Git sho
On 07/06/19 10:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 23/05/19 18:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> * Machine core (Eduardo, Marcel)
>>>
>>> query-machines, query-current-machine,
>>>
>>> ~60 lines. Hardly worthwhile from a "let's shrink misc.json" point of
>>> view.
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:59:31AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
> > On 27/05/19 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> As long as we don't have an active QOM maintainer[*], the benefit is
> >> low.
> >>
> >>
> >> [*] We need one. I'm not volunteering.
> >
> > I think
On 6/7/19 8:59 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> QOM is not a particularly active subsystem now: 51 commits in two years.
>
> We obviously need maintainers to review and merge patches. The nominal
> maintainer hasn't been doing that since 2015. Git shows the following
> top committers taking
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 23/05/19 18:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> * Machine core (Eduardo, Marcel)
>>
>> query-machines, query-current-machine,
>>
>> ~60 lines. Hardly worthwhile from a "let's shrink misc.json" point of
>> view. Might be worthwhile from a "let's make get_maintaine
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 27/05/19 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> As long as we don't have an active QOM maintainer[*], the benefit is
>> low.
>>
>>
>> [*] We need one. I'm not volunteering.
>
> I think Daniel, Eduardo and I could count as de facto maintainer. I
> guess I could maintain
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:03:50PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/05/19 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > As long as we don't have an active QOM maintainer[*], the benefit is
> > low.
> >
> >
> > [*] We need one. I'm not volunteering.
>
> I think Daniel, Eduardo and I could count as de f
On 27/05/19 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> As long as we don't have an active QOM maintainer[*], the benefit is
> low.
>
>
> [*] We need one. I'm not volunteering.
I think Daniel, Eduardo and I could count as de facto maintainer. I
guess I could maintain it if I get two partners in crime as
Eduardo Habkost writes:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> It's nice when QAPI schema modules clearly belong to a single subsystem
>> in addition to "QAPI Schema". misc.json doesn't, and it's grown fat:
>> 3000+ lines. Let's move out some stuff. Here are a
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:14:18PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> It's nice when QAPI schema modules clearly belong to a single subsystem
> in addition to "QAPI Schema". misc.json doesn't, and it's grown fat:
> 3000+ lines. Let's move out some stuff. Here are a few candidates:
>
> * Dump (Ma
On 23/05/19 18:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> * Machine core (Eduardo, Marcel)
>
> query-machines, query-current-machine,
>
> ~60 lines. Hardly worthwhile from a "let's shrink misc.json" point of
> view. Might be worthwhile from a "let's make get_maintainers.pl
> work".
>
> * CPUs (Pa
It's nice when QAPI schema modules clearly belong to a single subsystem
in addition to "QAPI Schema". misc.json doesn't, and it's grown fat:
3000+ lines. Let's move out some stuff. Here are a few candidates:
* Dump (Marc-André)
dump-guest-memory, query-dump, DUMP_COMPLETED,
query-dump-gues
14 matches
Mail list logo
