On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Yes, the "self-contained" wording covers both leaf features and a
subset of non-leaf features. "Non-crit-path" and "all relevant
maintainer are involved" are different subsets of non-leaf features,
however.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
