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(a)redhat.com> 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?