Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Kiszka writes ("[Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion"):
>> Another remark: If potential new maintainers should be affiliated with
>> any of the, to some degree, competing QEMU "accelerators" Xen and KVM, I
>> would be happy to see a public agreement beforehand on the general
>> architectural roadmap to cover those two requirement domains (+ the one
>> of KQEMU) in the future QEMU design. It would be bad for this project if
>> one side overrules the other via the (non-technical) preference of a
>> maintainer. Really, that's nothing against Ian personally or against
>> Xen/Citrix, the same would apply to KVM/Qumranet!
> Oh, certainly I don't think I would want to be in that position.
> I'm not sure we need an `architectural roadmap' agreed in advance; it
> might be better to discuss individual architectural questions one at a
I think we don't need this agreement-in-advance if the people who
finally decide about commits are neutral due to their affiliation or
have proven to be neutral despite of it, both politically as well as
technically - someone being deeply involved in one of both approaches
/may/ look biased at things, naturally.
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux