>>> On 14.10.16 at 02:58, <sstabell...@kernel.org> 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
>> of circumstances". A number of features are not plausibly for use in
>> production environments, but otherwise function fine for
>> development/investigatory purposes. In these cases, something like "no
>> security support, but believed to be working fine" might be appropriate.
> I agree on this. I think we need an intermediate step: "working but not
> supported for security" is completely reasonable. When we say that it is
> "working", it should be because we have automated testing for it (I
> don't know if I would go as far as requiring it to be in OSSTest, any
> automated testing, even third party, would do). If it is not
> automatically tested, then it is just "best effort".
I don't think this is a reasonable expectation - how would you envision
testing the dozens of command line options alone, not to speak of
things depending on hardware characteristics?
Xen-devel mailing list