Re: RESEND [PATCH v2] bsd-user: Add new maintainers

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:21:34AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:14 AM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 3/8/21 1:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:55:10PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >> On 08/03/2021 12.16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > >>> Hi Peter,
> > >>>
> > >>> +Markus/Paolo/Laurent/Richard
> > >>>
> > >>> On 3/8/21 11:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 10:09, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 07/03/2021 16.56, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >>>>>> The FreeBSD project has a number of enhancements to bsd-user. Add
> > myself
> > >>>>>> as maintainer and Kyle Evans as a reviewer. Also add our github
> > repo.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
> > >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>    MAINTAINERS | 5 ++++-
> > >>>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>>>> index 26c9454823..ec0e935038 100644
> > >>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>>>> @@ -2896,9 +2896,12 @@ F: thunk.c
> > >>>>>>    F: accel/tcg/user-exec*.c
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>    BSD user
> > >>>>>> -S: Orphan
> > >>>>>> +M: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> > >>>>>> +R: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
> > >>>>>> +S: Maintained
> > >>>>>>    F: bsd-user/
> > >>>>>>    F: default-configs/targets/*-bsd-user.mak
> > >>>>>> +T: git https://github.com/qemu-bsd-user/qemu-bsd-user
> > bsd-user-rebase-3.1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> BSD is not really my home turf, but since nobody else picked this up
> > and I
> > >>>>> plan to send a pull request for a bunch of patches anyway this week,
> > I can
> > >>>>> also put it into my queue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fine with me. (The v1 was in my to-review queue, but I'm currently
> > >>>> running somewhat behind on processing patches.)
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a patch for mainstream QEMU, I'm having hard time
> > >>> understanding the point of it. This is some official way
> > >>> to say that BSD-user is not maintained in mainstream but
> > >>> has to be used in the referred fork which is way different
> > >>> that mainstream...
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd rather wait for more mainstream contributions from Warner
> > >>> and Kyle, or blow the current orphan/dead code and import
> > >>> bsd-user-rebase-3.1 adding the maintainer entries along, but
> > >>> certainly not mark this dead code as maintained.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please convince me why I'm wrong, because I'd prefer NAck this
> > >>> patch...
> > >>
> > >> The idea has been discussed here:
> > >>
> > >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-01/msg01399.html
> > >>
> > >> So this is not about declaring that bsd-user is maintained in a
> > different
> > >> repository, but about giving Warner et al. a chance to finally upstream
> > >> their work.
> > >
> > > Yep, I think this change in MAINTAINERS file is primarily about
> > signalling
> > > intent for future
> >
> 
>  Yes. Just so. We have the older fork that we're trying to port forward. If
> people have changes as we do that, it sure would be nice to have them go
> through us rather than create more conflict with the main tree. I don't
> need to have a new set of conflicts with main because someone thought that
> it would be a good idea to move the space before or after the '(' or after
> in a bunch of files. It's just extra work if I have to do it as part of the
> merging. Better that goes into the top of our queue so it's managed and
> easy and a click on github than another half hour I have to spend sorting
> that out when I'd rather be sorting out the substantial change that go on
> upstream in other areas that legitimately do make things much better.
> 
> We talked about all this in the above thread, I thought, and I thought it
> was all settled, so I was rather surprised to wake up to this thread this
> morning.

>From my POV, nothing has changed - I think the MAINTAINERS change is
reasonable.


> > > Marking the subsystem as maintained isn't saying the current code is
> > great,
> > > just that there is someone committed to improving it hereafter.
> >
> > OK, thank Thomas / Daniel for explaining and referring to the "BSD-user
> > plans" (which I didn't notice earlier).
> >
> > Warner, what about mentioning your plans here in this patch?
> >
> 
> Where is there room in the MAINTAINERS file for that? How would you like me
> to do that?

I think he was just referring to mentioning the intention in the
commit message.  The MAINTAINERS file isn't a suitable place for
describing plans.

> > > If we want to warn people that the current impl isn't great, that's goes
> > > back to the topic of having a way to classify QEMU features into quality
> > > levels Tier 1/2/3.
> >
> > That indeed sounds good w.r.t. contributors / users expectations.
> >
> > I suppose 1=hw_accel/security, 2=tested, 3=rest?
> >
> > Not a single clue how to do that although.
> >
> 
> Yup. Why invent something new just to make it harder for me to get things
> into the tree? There's already the tiered maintainer stuff, and I'm trying
> to get our stuff that turn the current bsd-user that's crap into something
> that's quite solid.


...snip...

You don't have to worry about this  - it is tangential to your patch
here - a problem facing QEMU as a whole, not BSD specific, and there's
no immediate answer here either.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|