Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Hi Frank,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> > In your very previous paragraphs, you enumerate two separate causes:
> > "repository structure" and "development/maintenance process" as being
> > sources of "fun". ?Please simply accept that the former is considered
> > by many as absolutely trivial compared to the latter, and additional
> > verbose repetition of your thesis will not change this.
> 
> I can accept that many people consider it trivial but the problem is that we 
> have _real data_ on kmemtrace and now perf that the amount of contributors 
> is significantly smaller when your code is outside the kernel repository. 
> Now admittedly both of them are pretty intimate with the kernel but Ingo's 
> suggestion of putting kvm-qemu in tools/ is an interesting idea 
> nevertheless.

Correct.

> It's kinda funny to see people argue that having an external repository is 
> not a problem and that it's not a big deal if building something from the 
> repository is slightly painful as long as it doesn't require a PhD when we 
> have _real world_ experience that it _does_ limit developer base in some 
> cases. Whether or not that applies to kvm remains to be seen but I've yet to 
> see a convincing argument why it doesn't.

Yeah.

Also, if in fact the claim that the 'repository does not matter' is true then 
it doesnt matter that it's hosted in tools/kvm/ either, right?

I.e. it's a win-win situation. Worst-case nothing happens beyond a Git URI 
change. Best-case the project is propelled to never seen heights due to 
contribution advantages not contemplated and not experienced by the KVM guys 
before ...

	Ingo