Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Gerd Hoffmann, le Wed 06 Aug 2008 16:08:47 +0200, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Gerd Hoffmann, le Wed 06 Aug 2008 15:54:33 +0200, a écrit :
>>>> IMHO the best way to address this issue is to rebase frequently.
>>> Then why not pushing the changes to xen repositories in the first place?
>> Because I want have xen support in *upstream* qemu.
> I know, but you are basically saying "ok, guys, you'll just manage the
> breakage of the big merge, thanks", that's not very convenient, to say
> the least. For instance, where should fix patches be sent to? Both
> qemu-devel and xen-devel? Just xen-devel and thus make Ian have to push
> them to qemu-devel?
Most of the patches probably to both qemu-devel and xen-devel. Stuff
unrelated to xen (say e1000 emulation bugs) qemu-devel only.
> Pushing the cleaning changes to Xen first can be done and would entail
> much easier to tackle breakage, and the merge back from qemu would then
> be trivial, why not doing so?
>>>> I'm trying to fiddle my bits into qemu-dm right now. One problem is
>>>> that I get build failures simply because of the fact that the qemu-dm
>>>> base is old compared to upstream qemu.
>>> Use Ian Jackson's tree!
>> Adapt my patches to an oldish qemu fork, so they must be adapted again
>> for submitting upstream? No, thank you.
> AGAIN, THERE IS THE IAN JACKSON TREE.
> Thanks for reading.
I get build failures when patching THE IAN JACKSON TREE due to THE IAN
JACKSON TREE lagging behind upstream.
I can read, thank you. Please stop crying.
> Ian has _already_ done that hard work.
Oh, rebasing isn't a one-shot thing. You have to do it over and over
again. Unless you get your code upstream of course.
Xen-devel mailing list