Hi,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Julian Seward wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> > > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this thing,
> > > if you really think it would help.
> >
>
On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:57, Julian Seward wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> > > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this
> > > thing, if you really think it would help.
On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this thing,
> > if you really think it would help.
>
> If you implement all the missing bits in the process it'l
On Thursday 22 March 2007 7:29 pm, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> > https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this thing,
if
> > you really think it would help. Seems a bit roundabout to submit Paul
> > Brook's w
Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 7:00 pm, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday 20 March 2007 6:19 pm, Julian Seward wrote:
> > > > Limited effort is always a problem, granted.
> > > >
> > > > So here's a broader que
> Do you mean you're asking me to break up Paul Brook's QOPS tree at
> https://nowt.dyndns.org and submit it to mainline? I can do this thing, if
> you really think it would help.
If you implement all the missing bits in the process it'll help ;-)
Paul
_
On Thursday 22 March 2007 7:00 pm, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 20 March 2007 6:19 pm, Julian Seward wrote:
> > > Limited effort is always a problem, granted.
> > >
> > > So here's a broader question, which I'm surprised nobody has
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 March 2007 6:19 pm, Julian Seward wrote:
> > Limited effort is always a problem, granted.
> >
> > So here's a broader question, which I'm surprised nobody has asked
> > before (afaik). Think forward to a hypothetical QEMU 1.0 release.
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 6:19 pm, Julian Seward wrote:
> Limited effort is always a problem, granted.
>
> So here's a broader question, which I'm surprised nobody has asked
> before (afaik). Think forward to a hypothetical QEMU 1.0 release.
> What criteria are required for such a release?
*cough
On Thursday 15 March 2007 14:53, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Subsequent releases of the branch would contain no functionality
> > enhancements, but just bug fixes, with the eventual aim of achieving
> > 'it just works' status for any x86/x86_64 guest I try to install/run.
> > I know that's a tall order,
Paul Brook wrote:
Whereas I think the single easiest way to increase the user base would be to
merge the kvm patches.
This is good to hear. I should really have submitted patches to
qemu-devel long ago, but have run out of cycles. In addition, I am a
little concerned about the kvm user
> Subsequent releases of the branch would contain no functionality
> enhancements, but just bug fixes, with the eventual aim of achieving
> 'it just works' status for any x86/x86_64 guest I try to install/run.
> I know that's a tall order, and that 0.9.0 may not be able to supply
> that for all gue
On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:48, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I'm not necessarily sure I agree that a stable branch is the best thing
> to have (verses aiming for never introducing regressions).
Aiming for no regressions is a worthy aim, but I believe unachieveable
in a project of any size. For sure
I'm not necessarily sure I agree that a stable branch is the best thing
to have (verses aiming for never introducing regressions).
I do agree that a bug tracker would be terribly useful for tracking
regressions. Bug trackers quickly get out of hand though unless someone
spends a lot of time k
I am a great fan of QEMU, and have used it more or less continuously
for the past 2+ years. Over that time I've installed and operated
various Linux and Windows guests with varying degrees of success.
The recently released 0.9.0 seems a big step forward in the
stability/usability department, whi
15 matches
Mail list logo
