Adam Williamson wrote on 2014-09-09 19:48 (GMT-0700):
The specification of *dual* not *multi* was intentional. IIRC the discussion, anyhow.
Fine. That's what I thought too. But...
It's not about support "existing" but us blocking release on it *working*. The code will make a best effort to configure boot for whatever OSes it finds, unless we intentionally nerf it as we may for OS x, but the criteria are about the things we absolutely require must work for us to ship the release; in this context, we decided more than two OSes was being a little too ambitious.
Given the widespread mis-use of dual-boot to mean more than one, I was trying to make the point that the written blocking language used needs to be especially carefully crafted to ensure it *can't* be misinterpreted to mean more than two.