On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 09:36 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: >> > No, I don't see any reason why VMs are any different from any other >> > hardware plattform. So for VMs everything that applies to hardware >> > applies. If you are using out of tree or closed source drivers you >> > are >> > on your own etc. pp. >> >> It is a tempting thought, to address virtualization issues similarly to >> hardware issues. The only difference that comes to my mind is that hardware >> tends to be pretty stable (except for firmware updates), but virtualization >> software might change pretty quickly. If we take it into account, we could >> really consider virt platforms same as hw platforms - it would be a >> conditional blocker, and we would decide by using our best judgment >> according to issue severity, our estimate of the number of users affected >> and our ability to fix that. >> >> We could create a new paragraph in Blocker Bug FAQ [1] that would describe >> virt issues. We could specify which technologies we consider most important >> for Fedora (like KVM, VirtualBox, etc), and that would affect the final >> decision. >> >> In return, we wouldn't have to have criteria about concrete technologies, >> and we would be able to avoid tricky criteria definitions, like the >> VirtualBox one. >> >> Thoughts? > > This seems an interesting way to go, so long as we can keep the strong > support for KVM we currently have.
Given how widely used it is ... I wouldn't worry about that. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
