On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:34:08PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>
>> > On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:51, George Dunlap wrote:
>> >
>> >> A more practical requirement for a feature with "Supported" status is
>> >> that _either_:
>> >>
>> >> * The feature is t
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:34:08PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:51, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >> A more practical requirement for a feature with "Supported" status is
> >> that _either_:
> >>
> >> * The feature is tested automatically.
> >>
> >> * At least once during
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:51, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> A more practical requirement for a feature with "Supported" status is
>> that _either_:
>>
>> * The feature is tested automatically.
>>
>> * At least once during each release freeze, the feature's
>> maintainers produce a test report (by
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
>> So if we accept these definitions, it would would officially make
>> adding functionality to osstest a requirement for ever
Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
> PCI passthrough is interesting, because am not convinced we do
> handle security issues for it. Or are we?
We do handle PCI passthrough security issues, yes. A large proportion
of XSAs are due to PCI p
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 13:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
>> So if we accept these definitions, it would would officially make
>> adding functionality to osstest a requirement for everybody
&g
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 12:26, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> 4. Supported
>>- Intended functionality is fully implemented
>>- Feature is *maintained*
>>- Feature is *tested*
>>- Feature is *sta
Lars Kurth writes ("Re: Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
> However, I do also believe that the time evolution view in
> http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Release_Features is valuable and
> it is probably too hard to do this in an automated fashion, at least
> initially. So my of
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
> So if we accept these definitions, it would would officially make
> adding functionality to osstest a requirement for everybody
> contributing new functionality. I think at the moment, that
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 13:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Lars Kurth writes ("Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
>> following up from
>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01775.html I
>> wanted to propose the following convention related to feature classification
>>
Lars Kurth writes ("Proposal: Feature Maturity Lifecycle"):
> following up from
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01775.html I
> wanted to propose the following convention related to feature classification
> as a proposal for discussion. I tried to pretty much desc
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> following up from
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01775.html I
> wanted to propose the following convention related to feature classification
> as a proposal for discussion. I tried to pretty much
Hi all,
following up from
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01775.html I
wanted to propose the following convention related to feature classification as
a proposal for discussion. I tried to pretty much describe what we do now and
hope my understanding is correct.
13 matches
Mail list logo
