Dave Jones wrote:
That does seem sensible. In fact, at one stage, we *did* do things this way. There was a separate kernel-xen package, and I never had to worry about it. Concerns grew however about fixes going into one kernel package but not the other.
I think these guys are willing to work on it. I would suggest talking to them about it if it's a major concern (sounds like it is to me!)
> They certainly can't make it _your_ problem without backing you with the > proper resources to handle it. I'd have loved to have heard that 18 months ago. We might fix this issue, but I want to be sure it doesn't happen again. When the next "must have" half-baked not-upstream feature comes along, I'm seriously going to be pushing back a lot harder than I have done in the past.
Sounds fine to me. But just make sure it's "I don't have the bandwith to do this, you're going to have to help me" not "Xen sucks, get it out." Xen _might_ suck because it's not upstream, but I don't think that's the problem we're really dealing with here. Just a guess, though.
--Chris _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
