Re: [Xen-devel] Security support scope (apropos of Xen and CNA)

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/05/17 17:04, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tim Deegan writes ("Re: Security support scope (apropos of Xen and CNA)"):
>> Ah, so it is.  So there is information on the wiki page that's not in
>> MAINTAINERS.  Could that be moved into MAINTAINERS?  There are
>> a few things that don't map well to maintainership of specific
>> files, e.g. "vMCE" or nested virtualization.  But on the whole I
>> think that adding clauses for them would be OK.
> I think this is quite awkward, really.  MAINTAINERS is about files,
> and implementations.  The security support status is about parts of
> interfaces, which don't map at all well.
>
> We could add no-files stanzas, but how would you tell what they
> referred to ?

This is the principle behind introducing docs/features/* which, as part
of the required metadata, contains a support statement.

This way, there is an authoritative statement of support on a
per-feature basis which is easy to keep up to date.

Lars: Any update on your project level clarifications of support statuses?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel