Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] ui/cocoa.m: Add Mount image file menu item

[Markus Armbruster]

Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 September 2015 at 21:17, Programmingkid
>>>>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>> Add "Mount Image File..." and a "Eject Image File" menu items to
>>>>>>> cocoa interface. This patch makes sharing files between the
>>>>>>> host and the guest user-friendly.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The "Mount Image File..." menu item displays a dialog box having the
>>>>>>> user pick an image file to use in QEMU. The image file is setup as
>>>>>>> a USB flash drive. The user can do the equivalent of removing the
>>>>>>> flash drive by selecting the file in the "Eject Image File" submenu.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <address@hidden>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've thought a bit about this, and I really don't think this sort
>>>>>> of feature should be part of QEMU itself. Our general design for
>>>>>> how QEMU does this sort of thing is that an external program
>>>>>> (virt-manager, for instance) is responsible for providing most
>>>>>> of the UI conveniences the user wants, and QEMU's "ui" code is
>>>>>> a fairly simple minimum-functionality affair. I agree with Markus
>>>>>> that this separation of concerns has generally worked OK for us.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think OSX should be an exception to this design model:
>>>>>> (a) being an odd special case is never a good idea
>>>>>> (b) as a practical matter, I'm the only person who really reviews
>>>>>> OSX patches, and I don't have either the time nor the UI or OSX
>>>>>> expertise to deal with maintaining what will effectively be a
>>>>>> vm-manager grafted onto the side of QEMU
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I think your efforts would be better spent in either porting
>>>>>> one of the Linux frontends like libvirt/virt-manager, or in
>>>>>> writing a custom OSX specific frontend.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand that time is precious. It is one of those things
>>>>> that we only have a finite amount of. Every user can agree
>>>>> to that. This patch was pretty hairy looking with the QDict
>>>>> and other unfamiliar code. With that said I'm not ready to
>>>>> give up on this patch. It is a huge time saver for the user.
>>>>> Without it, the user would need to spend a lot of time
>>>>> investigating documentation. What's worse is the user
>>>>> would have to type out full paths to files they need. This
>>>>> would definitely be error prone and frustrating.
>>>> 
>>>> Nobody is challenging the idea that many users appreciate a GUI.
>>>> 
>>>> What we've been trying to tell you is where in this software layer cake
>>>> the GUI should be.  In Peter's words, "our general design for how QEMU
>>>> does this sort of thing is that an external program (virt-manager, for
>>>> instance) is responsible for providing most of the UI conveniences".
>>> 
>>> That is easy for you to say. Linux already has virt-manager. Mac OS
>>> X doesn't.
>>> Expecting someone to just go and port another program to Mac OS X is 
>>> unreasonable. The amount of time and energy it would take to do so
>>> would make it hard. 
>> 
>> On the purely technical level, it may or may not be harder than mashing
>> everything into QEMU.
>> 
>> On the getting-patches-merged level, mashing everything into QEMU is a
>> non-starter, as Peter and I have told you multiple times.
>> 
>> That tips the balance somewhat.
>> 
>>>>> This patch can definitely be more simplified. QMP
>>>>> commands could be used in place of C functions. 
>>>>> This would reduce the patch size greatly. 
>>>> 
>>>> You're quite welcome to use QMP the way it wants to be used: as an
>>>> external interface.
>>>> 
>>>> Abusing it as internal interface won't fly.
>>> 
>>> The QMP interface is primarily there to help a gui interact with QEMU. That
>>> is what I intend to use it for.
>> 
>> Nope, the QMP interface's purpose is to let other programs interact with
>> QEMU.
>> 
>> You're free to use it for other purposes to your heart's content.  Just
>> don't count on patches to be merged when they do things maintainers have
>> told you not to do :)
>
> I did do as you said and used C functions in place of the original hmp
> commands.

Yes, you did, to address my hard objections there.  A hard objection is
about a technical issue in my area of expertise, and especially the
areas I maintain.  Unaddressed hard objections NAK patches.

I also have opinions on matters outside the areas I maintain, like
whether we should be in the GUI business, but mere opinions don't NAK
patches.

> I guess there never was any hope for this patch. :(

Getting a patch rejected isn't a pleasant experience.  Would you like to
see my collection of rejected patches?