* Jes Sorensen (jes.soren...@redhat.com) wrote:
> As long as the bits are sitting in the tree without disturbing other
> parts, then I just think we should let them sit there.
Yup, I agree (there == qemu-kvm.git), and it doesn't need to be a gating
factor for pushing the merge into qemu.git.
than
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 03/23/10 13:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> I don't think we can pull in:
>>>
>>> - extboot
>>> - ia64
>>> - in-kernel pit[1]
>>> - associated command line options
>>> - device passthrough
>>>
>>> The question is, if we dropped those things, would pe
On 03/25/10 10:39, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
For ia64 part, maybe we can keep the current qemu-kvm.git for the users. And it
is not a must to push it into Qemu upstream.
Xiantao
Does it still build& work? Does someone test it at least infrequently?
Or are there users?
There w
Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 03/23/10 13:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I don't think we can pull in:
>>
>> - extboot
>> - ia64
>> - in-kernel pit[1]
>> - associated command line options
>> - device passthrough
>>
>> The question is, if we dropped those things, would people actually
>> use qemu.git in
On 03/23/10 13:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think we can pull in:
- extboot
- ia64
- in-kernel pit[1]
- associated command line options
- device passthrough
The question is, if we dropped those things, would people actually use
qemu.git instead of qemu-kvm.git. If the answer is "no", what
