On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 09:36 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > No, I don't see any reason why VMs are any different from any other > > hardware plattform. So for VMs everything that applies to hardware > > applies. If you are using out of tree or closed source drivers you > > are > > on your own etc. pp. > > It is a tempting thought, to address virtualization issues similarly to > hardware issues. The only difference that comes to my mind is that hardware > tends to be pretty stable (except for firmware updates), but virtualization > software might change pretty quickly. If we take it into account, we could > really consider virt platforms same as hw platforms - it would be a > conditional blocker, and we would decide by using our best judgment according > to issue severity, our estimate of the number of users affected and our > ability to fix that. > > We could create a new paragraph in Blocker Bug FAQ [1] that would describe > virt issues. We could specify which technologies we consider most important > for Fedora (like KVM, VirtualBox, etc), and that would affect the final > decision. > > In return, we wouldn't have to have criteria about concrete technologies, and > we would be able to avoid tricky criteria definitions, like the VirtualBox > one. > > Thoughts?
This seems an interesting way to go, so long as we can keep the strong support for KVM we currently have. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
