Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sep 25, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>>> Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 17 September 2015 at 21:17, Programmingkid >>>>>> <programmingk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Add "Mount Image File..." and a "Eject Image File" menu items to >>>>>>> cocoa interface. This patch makes sharing files between the >>>>>>> host and the guest user-friendly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "Mount Image File..." menu item displays a dialog box having the >>>>>>> user pick an image file to use in QEMU. The image file is setup as >>>>>>> a USB flash drive. The user can do the equivalent of removing the >>>>>>> flash drive by selecting the file in the "Eject Image File" submenu. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <programmingk...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've thought a bit about this, and I really don't think this sort >>>>>> of feature should be part of QEMU itself. Our general design for >>>>>> how QEMU does this sort of thing is that an external program >>>>>> (virt-manager, for instance) is responsible for providing most >>>>>> of the UI conveniences the user wants, and QEMU's "ui" code is >>>>>> a fairly simple minimum-functionality affair. I agree with Markus >>>>>> that this separation of concerns has generally worked OK for us. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think OSX should be an exception to this design model: >>>>>> (a) being an odd special case is never a good idea >>>>>> (b) as a practical matter, I'm the only person who really reviews >>>>>> OSX patches, and I don't have either the time nor the UI or OSX >>>>>> expertise to deal with maintaining what will effectively be a >>>>>> vm-manager grafted onto the side of QEMU >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think your efforts would be better spent in either porting >>>>>> one of the Linux frontends like libvirt/virt-manager, or in >>>>>> writing a custom OSX specific frontend. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that time is precious. It is one of those things >>>>> that we only have a finite amount of. Every user can agree >>>>> to that. This patch was pretty hairy looking with the QDict >>>>> and other unfamiliar code. With that said I'm not ready to >>>>> give up on this patch. It is a huge time saver for the user. >>>>> Without it, the user would need to spend a lot of time >>>>> investigating documentation. What's worse is the user >>>>> would have to type out full paths to files they need. This >>>>> would definitely be error prone and frustrating. >>>> >>>> Nobody is challenging the idea that many users appreciate a GUI. >>>> >>>> What we've been trying to tell you is where in this software layer cake >>>> the GUI should be. In Peter's words, "our general design for how QEMU >>>> does this sort of thing is that an external program (virt-manager, for >>>> instance) is responsible for providing most of the UI conveniences". >>> >>> That is easy for you to say. Linux already has virt-manager. Mac OS >>> X doesn't. >>> Expecting someone to just go and port another program to Mac OS X is >>> unreasonable. The amount of time and energy it would take to do so >>> would make it hard. >> >> On the purely technical level, it may or may not be harder than mashing >> everything into QEMU. >> >> On the getting-patches-merged level, mashing everything into QEMU is a >> non-starter, as Peter and I have told you multiple times. >> >> That tips the balance somewhat. >> >>>>> This patch can definitely be more simplified. QMP >>>>> commands could be used in place of C functions. >>>>> This would reduce the patch size greatly. >>>> >>>> You're quite welcome to use QMP the way it wants to be used: as an >>>> external interface. >>>> >>>> Abusing it as internal interface won't fly. >>> >>> The QMP interface is primarily there to help a gui interact with QEMU. That >>> is what I intend to use it for. >> >> Nope, the QMP interface's purpose is to let other programs interact with >> QEMU. >> >> You're free to use it for other purposes to your heart's content. Just >> don't count on patches to be merged when they do things maintainers have >> told you not to do :) > > I did do as you said and used C functions in place of the original hmp > commands.
Yes, you did, to address my hard objections there. A hard objection is about a technical issue in my area of expertise, and especially the areas I maintain. Unaddressed hard objections NAK patches. I also have opinions on matters outside the areas I maintain, like whether we should be in the GUI business, but mere opinions don't NAK patches. > I guess there never was any hope for this patch. :( Getting a patch rejected isn't a pleasant experience. Would you like to see my collection of rejected patches?
