On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:34:04AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:38:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The feature was +1ed on the assumption that the feature owner, as a > > maintainer of relevant code, is in a better position to judge the impact > > on the packages they're working on than people who don't have that level > > of expertise in the area in question. If the change turns out to have a > > negative effect on the distribution as a whole then that's something > > that should be discussed. If there's no more reasonable solution then it > > should be reverted. But at present procedure is working pretty much > > exactly as expected. > > > While I think that there might be some hyperbole in reaction to this Feature > approval, this view of the Feature Approval Process is certainly not how > I envisioned it when we initially implemented the Approval Process. FESCo > reviews the Features in order to understand and point out how the changes > will impact the distribution as a whole. Maintainers *are* better at > understanding how their changes affect the code they work on but they > aren't always better at seeing how their changes impact other people and the > code that they maintain. > If it's clear to FESCo that the feature is going to have a significant impact on packages outside of those directly affected by the change then FESCo should take that into account when approving the feature. However, if a feature is well-confined to the packages under the maintainer's responsibility then second-guessing the maintainer's judgement is dangerous. Any negative fallout should be dealt with by the maintainer, and unless that fails I don't see any reason for FESCo to be involved. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
