On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/22/15 11:05, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> On 07/21/15 18:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On 21/07/2015 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> or work >>>> with others to add upstream maintainers. >>> >>> When we can't get the maintainer's attention for our patches, and when >>> the maintainer tends to rewrite even those patches he more or less >>> likes, how do you propose we convince him to give *push access* to >>> random people? >>> >>>> I see that Hannes Reinecke >>>> also has patches on ipxe-devel that look ignored, so Gred and Laszlo >>>> are not the only ones struggling to get patches upstream into ipxe. >>> >>> I've said it several times (on other lists too), and I'll say it again: >>> ipxe is not an "open process" community project at this point. The last >>> half year, as Paolo indicated, and as I proved above, has been ample >>> experience. >> >> I understand the frustration with upstream. Thanks for posting a >> summary of stranded patch series, it helped explain that. >> >> The reason I'm suggesting reaching out to Michael Brown is that the >> downstream repo will only be an "open process" for us virtualization >> developers. It won't have a user community, support, or help improve >> the situation for non-virtualization developers - all things which >> matter for a healthy long-term open source project. > > All the things upstream ipxe has been lacking for at least half a year > now, without much indication that it could improve. > >> It may be simplest if Gerd maintains a QEMU downstream repository. I'm >> not against that. But let's notify Michael Brown so he has a chance to >> consider the problem. > > If you can reach out to Michael Brown, that would be highly appreciated. > Personally I lost all hope.
Done. Stefan
