Release criteria: virtualization tweak

[agraham]

On 09/08/2011 08:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 19:42 +0100, agraham wrote:
>
>>> It's intentionally ambiguous: I try to write the criteria as generically
>>> as possible. This ensures we don't have to rewrite them just because we
>>> change tack. (Remember, our 'preferred virt technology' was Xen not so
>>> long ago; if we'd had hardcoded criteria that stated 'Xen' at that
>>> point, we'd have had to rewrite them to say 'KVM'). I think it's just
>>> more correct, too: our intent is not that 'KVM should work', really, our
>>> intent really is 'whatever Fedora currently reckons is The Good Stuff
>>> should work'. Same reason the criteria say 'the installer' and not
>>> 'anaconda', and 'refer generically to 'release-blocking desktops', not
>>> 'GNOME and KDE'.
>>
>> I fully understand where you are coming from, when it comes to policy
>> statements, they usually refer to now and possibly the past, but not
>> future. because policies usually needs to change as you state.
>
> sure, but it certainly helps to write them in such a way that they'll
> need to change as little as possible. it's already enough work
> maintaining the criteria :/

Regarding the term "Releases", what does this mean?

Does it include all versions of the Live CDs/USB images as well as the 
normal DVDs images.

i.e. anything on the download page (for a specific version + n-1), I'm 
just thinking of what actually needs to be tested in order to meet the 
policy.

Albert.