On 29 June 2016 at 14:03, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > I think from an upstream-maintainer viewpoint the question is > whether a code drop would be just a code drop, or whether > it gets us to a position where we have an active upstream > maintainer for the bsd-user code. I think the latter would > be a win for everybody.
I can't speak for Sean and he's AFK for a week or two, but he's been performing this function for the fork for some time -- updating it for changes in the rest of QEMU, etc. I think we've been stuck on upstreaming it because it is somewhat awkward to refactor and is a reasonable amount of effort, and we've lacked a bsd-user maintainer to review or approve the patches anyhow. I agree with a large code drop being undesirable. Given current expectations (with bsd-user unmaintained) I hope we can make another push to refactor and upstream the changes. We should be able to put in some effort to present the patches in a sensible and logical order and I'm willing to help with that. Perhaps we'll need a little leeway on the parts specific to bsd-user, but I'm really hopeful we can make this happen. I also hope some folks from NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and others will help test the patch sets.
