On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > 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.
Make sense. In that case we should definitely write it down somewhere. I like the idea of keeping these info on pandoc on a git repo, like Lars did with the governance. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel