On 28/08/15 19:52, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
> On 28/08/2015 19:18, "Andrew Cooper" wrote:
>
>> On 28/08/15 18:51, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> We may need some extra tags/headings, if we were to include things such
>>> as supported limits for memory, vCPUs, ... I remember, you raised the
>>> point that some o
On 28/08/2015 19:18, "Andrew Cooper" wrote:
>On 28/08/15 18:51, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>>
>>
>> We may need some extra tags/headings, if we were to include things such
>>as supported limits for memory, vCPUs, ... I remember, you raised the
>>point that some of the theoretical limits are not always
On 28/08/15 18:51, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> On 28 Aug 2015, at 18:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On 28/08/15 18:16, Lars Kurth wrote:
On 27 Aug 2015, at 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature
documentation"):
> An issue which Xen
> On 28 Aug 2015, at 18:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 28/08/15 18:16, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> On 27 Aug 2015, at 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for feat
On 28/08/15 18:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/08/15 18:16, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> On 27 Aug 2015, at 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
Give
On 28/08/15 18:16, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> On 27 Aug 2015, at 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
>>> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
>>> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-l
> On 27 Aug 2015, at 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
>> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
>> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
>> particular keepi
On 27/08/15 18:58, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature
> documentation"):
>> On 27/08/15 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I do wonder whether cross-referencing all the "issues" is a good idea.
>>> It seems like it might be a lot of work to keep them in
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
> On 27/08/15 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I do wonder whether cross-referencing all the "issues" is a good idea.
> > It seems like it might be a lot of work to keep them in step.
>
> I don't expect all the issues to
On 27/08/15 15:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
>> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
>> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
>> particular keeping it up to da
Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
> particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system for
> featur
On 27/08/15 03:44, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 04:40 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
>> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
>> particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system fo
On 08/25/2015 04:40 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system for
features.
Patch 1 introduces a proposed tem
An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system for
features.
Patch 1 introduces a proposed template (and a makefile tweak to include
the new
14 matches
Mail list logo
