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