Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread Stefano Stabellini
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread Stefano Stabellini
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread George Dunlap
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 >>>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread Dario Faggioli
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-14 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Stefano Stabellini
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 >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Andrew Cooper
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Stefano Stabellini
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Stefano Stabellini
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Wei Liu
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Dario Faggioli
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread George Dunlap
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.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Andrew Cooper
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

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3 for 4.8] docs: feature documents for the schedulers

2016-10-13 Thread Dario Faggioli
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,