From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: Obsolete QEMU host environments (was: Re: KVM call for 2017-03-14) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:07:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314160113.GM2445@work-vm> <20170314162020.GT2652@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Juan Quintela , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list , Stefan Hajnoczi , Richard Henderson , Aurelien Jarno To: Thomas Huth Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com ([209.85.128.175]:32940 "EHLO mail-wr0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752822AbdCNRHi (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:07:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u48so128466363wrc.0 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:07:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14 March 2017 at 17:54, Thomas Huth wrote: > Our ia64 host backend in QEMU (tcg/ia64) is still marked as maintained > ... so it's maybe not as dead as you think? Or should we rather get rid > of that soon, too? I don't actually mind whether we keep tcg/ia64 or drop it. But if we keep it then we must have a machine we can test it on -- that means one I have access to (and which we can otherwise use for central testing), not just one the maintainer might happen to have. Also, that MAINTAINERS entry was added in 2011, so it's probably about as out of date as the code :-) thanks -- PMM From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52984) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnpv3-0007JV-PW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:07:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnpv3-0007ZG-1h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:07:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]:35392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnpv2-0007Y9-Rz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:07:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g10so128433260wrg.2 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314160113.GM2445@work-vm> <20170314162020.GT2652@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:07:11 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Obsolete QEMU host environments (was: Re: KVM call for 2017-03-14) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Juan Quintela , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list , Stefan Hajnoczi , Richard Henderson , Aurelien Jarno On 14 March 2017 at 17:54, Thomas Huth wrote: > Our ia64 host backend in QEMU (tcg/ia64) is still marked as maintained > ... so it's maybe not as dead as you think? Or should we rather get rid > of that soon, too? I don't actually mind whether we keep tcg/ia64 or drop it. But if we keep it then we must have a machine we can test it on -- that means one I have access to (and which we can otherwise use for central testing), not just one the maintainer might happen to have. Also, that MAINTAINERS entry was added in 2011, so it's probably about as out of date as the code :-) thanks -- PMM