[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [Hackathon Minutes] Xen 4.4 Planning


--On 14 June 2013 10:46:31 +0100 Ian Murray <murrayie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As an example of the first, the API changed very significantly between
3.x and 4.1, and 4.1 and 4.2. Some of the API changes were subtle (e.g.
what you had to do across a fork()).

But surely, this is your business. This is what you do. Sounds like you
want API changes to be held back for the entire community so your company
has to do less work.

I think forward compatible APIs are a good thing. This is not
controversial. I believe there are few people in the Xen community
who think not having forward compatible APIs was anything but a mistake.

There's nothing wrong with that, and we have done. However this thread
is about development cycles. Critical stuff breaks, we know that.
That should happen in the unstable version. Patches that fix critical
stuff should be made in the unstable version, not the stable version.

Do *you* test unstable and point out the critical bugs BEFORE it goes
stable? If you don't, then don't be surprised when bugs crop up...

Yes we do. If you want a concrete example, go search for the migration
wallclock lockup thread this month.

I looked on your website and couldn't find any download section for
patches or a pointer to github or anything. I am not a lawyer but I
didn't get the impression that sticking patches on a mailing list was
fulfilling ones obligation under the appropriate licence. So please can
you link from your company website to your github were these patches are

The fact it is not immediately obvious to you on a marketing web site
does not mean it isn't there. You'll find it in our repo too (though
not as a git repository which is actually what people want).

Saying that, I have no objection at all to making this more obvious,
and will do so. We're proud of what we do with open source.

One aspect from your previous email I'd like to pickup on, when you
mentioned KVM not having these issues, are you compiling from the source
or using a distribution version? If the latter, then I think that is an
unfair comparison.

We use a distribution version (we run Ubuntu throughout). I'm not
quite sure why it's an unfair comparison. If there was an Ubuntu version
of 4.2.x for an LTS release, we'd be using that.

Are you implying that the STABLE Xen version on xenbits should not be
expected to be as reliable as the same version packaged by a maintainer?
If so, why?

Alex Bligh

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.