On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:05:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > > On 30 September 2011 20:23, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > So this discussion seems to have stalled. Tim and I are both ambivalent, > > > and we got three responses that were positive but tentative or from > > > 'interested parties' (no offence :>). Does anyone who doesn't have skin > > > in the game have an opinion either way? > > > > I'll just mention that as far as I'm concernd Fedora 16 boots and runs > > *VERY* well as a dom0 and a domU, the sticking point is the actual > > installation as a domU (the paravirtual device driver issue, probably > > grub2 issues) I can get around this for my own purposes by "knife and That particular bug I believe has been fixed. Just needs to test it when it shows up in the install image (look for the install image having lorax-16.4.5-1 rpm) (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741950) > > forking" together a system image copied from a non-xen installation, > > it would be a shame to not have this feature mor easily available ... > > What's necessary to make it a release blocker is not so much 'it'd be > nice if it worked' arguments - I think in general everyone agrees it'd > be nice if it worked :) - but more 'it would be terrible to release > without it working, because' arguments. That's the level of impact we > need for release criteria, because something being in the release > criteria means that if it's not working, we don't ship. Which is a > pretty high bar to get over. There are kernel developers who are willing to write and test code. There is also a community of folks who are willing to test install/provide patches for grub/grub2/grubby/etc. However, I am ignorant in the ways of making a release go out the door - so I am not seeing the full picture. What are the missing pieces? -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
