On 11/06/2011 06:35 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> The difference here is that although I feel Alex's script is a
> >> pointless project, I'm in no way opposed to merging it in the tree if
> >> people use it and it solves their problem. Some people seem to be
> >> violently opposed to merging the KVM tool and I'm having difficult
> >> time understanding why that is.
> >
> > One of the reasons is that if it is merge, anyone with a #include
> > <linux/foo.h> will line up for the next merge window, wanting in. The
> > other is that anything in the Linux source tree might gain an unfair
> > advantage over out-of-tree projects (at least that's how I read Jan's
> > comment).
>
> Well, having gone through the process of getting something included so
> far, I'm not at all worried that there's going to be a huge queue of
> "#include <linux/foo.h>" projects if we get in...
>
> What kind of unfair advantage are you referring to? I've specifically
> said that the only way for KVM tool to become a reference
> implementation would be that the KVM maintainers take the tool through
> their tree. As that's not going to happen, I don't see what the
> problem would be.
I'm not personally worried about it either (though in fact a *minimal*
reference implementation might not be a bad idea). There's the risk of
getting informed in-depth press reviews ("Linux KVM Takes A Step Back
>From Running Windows Guests"), or of unfairly drawing developers away
from competing projects.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
