On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 22:31 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Yes, it doesn't have to be all pushed upstream for it to be used. It's just
> a question of how big the out-of-upstream patchset is that Jeremy has to
> manage. And actually there's maintenance work even with the upstreamed
> patches, of course. But none of that directly matters for consumers of
> Jeremy's tree.
No, of course it doesn't. The problem is, Jeremy's tree is very much a
moving target as he works to produce patches that upstream will accept.
I think what most people really want is something to use in the mean
time which remains relatively static (but maintained, i.e. CVE's,
bugfixes, etc). If several distros and the community at large pulled
from a common repository, the result would be a very stable kernel (even
if not good enough for submission upstream).
What ends up happening is Linux maintenance falls on the backs of the
integrators who promote and sell solutions based on Xen. Its not that
this situation is in any way _unfair_, we're making money because of
Xen. Rather, in most cases, its _untenable_ unless the integrator has in
depth kernel knowledge.
Its a frustrating situation, 10,000+ people would be willing to help, if
only their aptitudes matched the problem at hand.
Cheers,
--Tim
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home