Re: [Xen-devel] Should we mark RTDS as supported feature from experimental feature?

[Meng Xu <xumengpanda@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> However, inside MAINTAINERS file, the status of RTDS scheduler is
>>> marked as Supported (refer to commit point 28041371 by Dario Faggioli
>>> on 2015-06-25).
>>>
>> There's indeed a discrepancy between the way one can read that bit of
>> MAINTAINERS, and what is generally considered Supported (e.g., subject
>> to security support, etc).
>>
>> This is true in general, not only for RTDS (more about this below).
>
> The purpose of starting the feature docs (in docs/features/) was to
> identify the technical status of a feature, along side some
> documentation pertinent to its use.
>
> I am tempted to suggest a requirement of "no security support without a
> feature doc" for new features, in an effort to resolve the current
> uncertainty as to what is supported and what is not.

I see. As I said in Dario's reply, I will add a feature doc in the
summer about the RTDS scheduler.

>
> As for the MAINTAINERS file, supported has a different meaning.  From
> the file itself,

Right. I read this doc before asking. :-)

>
> Descriptions of section entries:
>
> M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
> L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
> W: Web-page with status/info
> T: SCM tree type and location.  Type is one of: git, hg, quilt, stgit.
> S: Status, one of the following:
>            Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this.
>            Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it.
>            Odd Fixes:   It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do
>             much other than throw the odd patch in. See below..
>            Orphan:      No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the
>                     role as you write your new code].
>            Obsolete:    Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
>             it has been replaced by a better system and you
>                         should be using that.
>
> Nothing in the MAINTAINERS file constitutes a security statement.

I didn't realize this before.

Thank you very much for clarification!

Meng

-- 
-----------
Meng Xu
PhD Student in Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mengxu/

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