> > I think there's an interim compromise position that
> everyone might go
> > for:
> >
> > Phase 1 is for us to submit a load of patches that squeeze
> out the low
> > hanging fruit in unifying xen/i386 and i386. Most of these will be
> > strict cleanups to i386, and the result will be to alm
"Ian Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The Xen team still believe that it's best to keep arch/xen,
> > arch/xen/i386,
> > arch/xen/x86_64, etc. And I believe that Andi (who is the
> > world expert on
> > maintaining an i386 derivative) thinks that this is will be a
> > long-term
> > m
> Phase 1 is for us to submit a load of patches that squeeze out the low
> hanging fruit in unifying xen/i386 and i386. Most of these will be
> strict cleanups to i386, and the result will be to almost halve the
> number of files that we need to modify.
Sounds good. I would try to track that for x
> The Xen team still believe that it's best to keep arch/xen,
> arch/xen/i386,
> arch/xen/x86_64, etc. And I believe that Andi (who is the
> world expert on
> maintaining an i386 derivative) thinks that this is will be a
> long-term
> maintenance problem.
I think there's an interim compromis
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion it's still an extremly bad idea to have arch/xen
> an own architecture.
Guys, I'd like to kick this a bit further down the road. Things still seem
to be somewhat deadlocked.
To summarise my understanding:
The Xen team still believe that i
5 matches
Mail list logo
