On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.10.16 at 11:59, wrote:
> > On 14/10/16 07:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 14.10.16 at 02:58, wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> There should be a high barrier to "Supported" status, because the cost
> of getting
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 14/10/16 07:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.10.16 at 02:58, wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>> There should be a high barrier to "Supported" status, because the cost
> >>> of getting it wrong is equally high. However, the
>>> On 14.10.16 at 11:59, wrote:
> On 14/10/16 07:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.10.16 at 02:58, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
There should be a high barrier to "Supported" status, because the cost
of getting it wrong is equally high. However, there are perfe
On 14/10/16 07:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.10.16 at 02:58, wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> There should be a high barrier to "Supported" status, because the cost
>>> of getting it wrong is equally high. However, there are perfectly
>>> legitimate intermediate stages
On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 13:46 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:44:28PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so, if that's the case, what's the process: resend (this patch)
> > --
> > or some other kind of formal request-- with secur...@xenproject.org
> > Cc-ed?
> >
>
> If you
>>> On 14.10.16 at 02:58, wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> There should be a high barrier to "Supported" status, because the cost
>> of getting it wrong is equally high. However, there are perfectly
>> legitimate intermediate stages such as "Supported in these limited set
>>
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > I like the idea of keeping these info on pandoc on a git repo, like Lars
> > did with the governance.
>
> I should hasten to add that perhaps picking on the security team in
> isolation was a poor move on my part, for which I apologise. There are
> mul
On 13/10/2016 22:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of experimental.
Supperted? That's like supported right? ;p
It is fine for you to propose that a feature should be upgraded to
supported, and this is probably the best way to formally do
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On October 13, 2016 2:13:19 PM EDT, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >> > Hey,
> >> >
> >> > "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost
On October 13, 2016 2:13:19 PM EDT, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost)
>all our
>> > schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost) all our
> > schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the fact that I'm declaring
> > Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of experime
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:44:28PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 12:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost)
> > > all our
> > > schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart
On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 12:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost)
> > all our
> > schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the fact that I'm
> > declaring
> > Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of
On 13/10/16 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost) all our
>> schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the fact that I'm declaring
>> Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of experimental.
>
On 13/10/16 12:01, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Hey,
>
> "Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost) all our
> schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the fact that I'm declaring
> Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of experimental.
Supperted? That's like supported right? ;p
I
Hey,
"Just" as per the subject, I wrote feature documents for (almost) all our
schedulers. No big deal, I'd say, apart from the fact that I'm declaring
Credit2 **Supperted**, instead of experimental.
In fact, it's being tested by OSSTest for ages, and it's undergone a huge
amount of development,
16 matches
Mail list logo