On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
>> > - Critical Path Feature
>> > - Other Enhancement Feature
>> > - New Leaf Feature
>> We were thinking with a few folks more about "Self contained feature"
>> but yeah, there's a lack of real definition.
>
> I think "Leaf" is better than "Self contained", since it's unlikely for the
> feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for such a
> feature to rely on small changes to existing packages (version updates,
> say).
"Self-contained" in the proposal is intentionally more broad than
"leaf". For example, it allows a small SIG for a less-used language
that does not affect the rest of the distribution to agree to do a
major version upgrade and to coordinate among the SIG members (as they
would coordinate in any case), without FESCo playing an useless
middle-man.
(The suggested definition of "self-contained" is something like
"maintainers of all affected packages sign up to participate on the
work for the feature".)
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
