Re: [libvirt] RFC: Drop unmaintained hv drivers? (phyp, xenapi, hyperv)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:54:15AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 04/18/2016 05:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 03:54:00PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
>
> In general I'm not really in favour of dropping virt drivers for hypervisor
> platforms that still exist and have potential users, even if we don't hear
> much about them. I don't think any of these drivers is really giving us a
> significant maintenance headache to justify deletion.
>
It's just kind of a weird situation. We advertise support for these platforms,
but if someone tries them and finds them lacking and reports an issue here,
the only response they are going to get is 'no one has worked on it for years,
no one here has a setup to test, sorry we cannot help you'. That's if they get
a response at all. Seems bizarre to me...
This is implying that because we don't have an active maintainer who will
answer bug reports, then the driver is entirely useless to everybody. I
find that really dubious, because it ignores the possibility that people
are happily using the other parts of it that actually do work. Sure it
would be nice if we have active maintainers, but I don't think the lack
of an active maintainer means the driver is useless to all users.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|