On 08/05/17 17:04, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tim Deegan writes ("Re: Security support scope (apropos of Xen and CNA)"):
>> Ah, so it is. So there is information on the wiki page that's not in
>> MAINTAINERS. Could that be moved into MAINTAINERS? There are
>> a few things that don't map well to maintainership of specific
>> files, e.g. "vMCE" or nested virtualization. But on the whole I
>> think that adding clauses for them would be OK.
> I think this is quite awkward, really. MAINTAINERS is about files,
> and implementations. The security support status is about parts of
> interfaces, which don't map at all well.
>
> We could add no-files stanzas, but how would you tell what they
> referred to ?
This is the principle behind introducing docs/features/* which, as part
of the required metadata, contains a support statement.
This way, there is an authoritative statement of support on a
per-feature basis which is easy to keep up to date.
Lars: Any update on your project level clarifications of support statuses?
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
