[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] VPMU backports for 4.6
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 00:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 20.01.16 at 18:36, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (As a side --- XSA-163 says that VPMU is "unsupported security-wise". > > Do > > we make any distinction between a feature being generally or > > security-wise unsupported?) > > Not sure; considering stable tree maintenance one might imply > general support to be a superset of security support. But I can > easily see other views on that being equally possible/legitimate. I think I would take the view that if it is Unsupported then it is Unsupported until we explicitly say otherwise. That doesn't mean we can't backport fixes for issues which people (presumably those who are working on taking the feature from Unsupported to Supported in unstable) identify and would like fixed, assuming they don't impact other Supported features. I think it is OK for folks working on a currently unsupported feature in unstable to want to fix known issues even in stable releases, particularly (although not exclusively) those which would block people from doing further testing. Fixing those issues expands the amount of feedback which can be gathered from users who might be willing to test the feature, but not use a development version, which helps the developers find the next bug after the one which was fixed, which will help to move that feature forwards in the development branch too. It's also possible that a feature might improve sufficiently that we would consider it supported from a particular point release. We've done so n the past, I think, although not always successfully, I'm thinking xsave in and around the 4.0.x releases. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |