El Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:05:31 -0700
Adam Williamson escribió:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> > On 30 September 2011 20:23, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So this discussion seems to have stalled. Tim and I are both
> > > ambivalent, and we got three responses that
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:38:02PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not so much a question of 'do we have the resources in place to
> probably make sure it works at release time' but 'is it a terrible
> disaster if we make a release in which it's broken'. That's what the
> release validation pr
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:38:02 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:02 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>
> It's not so much a question of 'do we have the resources in place to
> probably make sure it works at release time' but 'is it a terrible
> disaster if we make a rel
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:02 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > What's necessary to make it a release blocker is not so much 'it'd be
> > nice if it worked' arguments - I think in general everyone agrees it'd
> > be nice if it worked :) - but more 'it would be terrible to release
> > without i
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:05:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> > On 30 September 2011 20:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > So this discussion seems to have stalled. Tim and I are both ambivalent,
> > > and we got three responses that w
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 20:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > So this discussion seems to have stalled. Tim and I are both ambivalent,
> > and we got three responses that were positive but tentative or from
> > 'interested parties' (no offence :>)
On 30 September 2011 20:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So this discussion seems to have stalled. Tim and I are both ambivalent,
> and we got three responses that were positive but tentative or from
> 'interested parties' (no offence :>). Does anyone who doesn't have skin
> in the game have an opini
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 01:18:20PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:22:38PM +1100, Norman Gaywood wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:41 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> > > > Specifically, do we want to
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:22:38PM +1100, Norman Gaywood wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:41 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> > > Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> > > criteria?
>
> Just my 2c. I us
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:41 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> > Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> > criteria?
Just my 2c. I use Fedora Xen DomU and will be hoping to run F16 that way
when it's released.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It might be good to consider use cases too. One particular one is EC2:
> I've heard that EC2 guests are Xen instances but I'm not entirely sure
> about the details. Is this the case? i.e. if a Fedora release didn't
> boot in X
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:41 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> During the discussion around Xen DomU support as a beta release
> criterion in the Fedora QA meeting today, the question of blocking for
> DomU came up.
>
> Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> criteria?
>
> I
On 26 September 2011 17:41, Tim Flink wrote:
> Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> criteria?
I would certainly appreciate it, it it was. I used to run Fedora with
Xen up until the dom0 removal (I understand the reasons why that
happened and I've also noticed th
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:17:38AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Anyhow, thoughts around making DomU support a final release criterion?
>
> I'm kinda ambivalent. I can see the 'should be fixed by install time'
> argument but that doesn't quite count as a compelling argument for
> making
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:41 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> During the discussion around Xen DomU support as a beta release
> criterion in the Fedora QA meeting today, the question of blocking for
> DomU came up.
>
> Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> criteria?
>
> I
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:41:00AM -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> During the discussion around Xen DomU support as a beta release
> criterion in the Fedora QA meeting today, the question of blocking for
> DomU came up.
>
> Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
> criteria?
During the discussion around Xen DomU support as a beta release
criterion in the Fedora QA meeting today, the question of blocking for
DomU came up.
Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release
criteria?
I can think of two arguments for making it a release criterion:
1. I
17 matches
Mail list logo
