On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Briefly, 1) we aren't staffed for it, 2) it encourages crappy behavior
on the part of the module authors by providing disincentive to getting
it upstream, 3) it's a maintenance hassle, 4) we typically already
have alternatives (this is particularly true in the case of virt), 5)
it's yet another entry in an already rapidly expanding test matrix
that has to be checked off (which goes back to item 1), etc etc.
I consider myself to be fairly open to many things. Carrying
virtualbox modules out-of-tree when the authors refuse to even submit
them upstream for review and have no intention of ever doing so is not
one of those things. This is one of the few items where I simply say
no.
Do I sense a possible conflict of interest here ?
I think Alberto's argument that including such drivers will make it a
lot easier to try the workstation on popular virtualization solutions
carries some weight and deserves to be discussed, instead of rejected
out-of-hand.