On October 13, 2016 2:13:19 PM EDT, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> 
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 fact that I'm
>declaring
>> > 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 so.
>> 
>> However, final agreement of a feature becoming supported should
>include
>> input from the security team. (At the end of the day, it is us with
>> extra work if the feature isn't up to scratch.)
>
>Is this new? If so, should we formalize the change in process somewhere
>(patch to governance, etc.)?

This came about when we had .. XSA7? Which was the tmem one and came with the 
idea that anything that moves to Supported has to pass the security audit pass.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Reply via email to