Re: [Publicity] Blog Czar update, week of Sept 9

[Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:33:49PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On gio, 2013-09-19 at 15:10 +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 01:05:09AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > > For instance, in the very first sentence you mention both "QEMU" and the
> > > "old qemu-traditional". Apart from adding the proper hyperlinking, what
> > > about stating once more, as clearly as possible, what the differences
> > > are, i.e., which one is what, which one is the default, etc.?
> > 
> > Yes, I can write a bit more about the difference between qemu and
> > qemu-trad.
> > 
> Ok.
> 
> > > "A thing called dirty tracking of physical memory", worth expanding a
> > > little bit to tell people what it is and why it is important? Still in
> > > that sentence, I'm not sure I understand what the following means: "but
> > > it has also been backported to 4.2, so itâs not that new".
> > > 
> > 
> > What I meant was the memory dirty tracking was not part of the 4.2
> > release, but appear later in the 4.2.2 release. This was an important
> > missing feature to be able to live-migrate a guest.
> > 
> Ok, now I understood it. Consider putting it right in the way you just
> did here, I think it'd be more clear.
> 
> > > What about some of the development that is happening right now, whether
> > > or not it is targeting 4.4? You've got QEMU stubdom there already, I
> > > know, but is that the only thing happening on the qemu side? Perhaps we
> > > can quickly list what we've got in George's development update that is
> > > qemu related with a few words of context? I'm sure there's someone
> > > (Fabio Fantoni?) working on improved USB controller, spice and qxl
> > > support... No need to have a detailed tech report, but it perhaps is
> > > worth at least mentioning?
> > 
> > Yes, I can try to list more things.
> > 
> > > Another thing that I think could be interesting to (re)state is what
> > > does it mean to achieve the goal of getting rid of qemu-traditional? Why
> > > is it a good thing? For instance, in 4.4 there will be config options
> > > for using the distro provided QEMU, instead of cloning and building our
> > > own (whether it is upstream or traditional), wont it? If yes, that I
> > > think is quite a _big_deal_ (or so I always hear from distro people!).
> > > 
> > > So... Am I talking nonsense? Do you think it's worth trying to add at
> > > least some of the things I mentioned?
> > 
> > Yes, I'll try to put something togethere.
> > 
> Ok... It's Thursday afternoon already so, you know, the sooner the
> better! :-P

I have respond to the comment of dario in the post, could someone give a
look?

http://blog.xen.org/?p=7887&preview=true

Thanks,

-- 
Anthony PERARD

_______________________________________________
Publicity mailing list
Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/publicity