On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > 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".) I don't mind too much what the actual name is as long as the scope is clear. Here, I think you're smooshing together two of the three levels I'd suggested, putting both non-crit-path enhancements and new leaf functionality into one category. Is that correct? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
