On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
