On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > 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.
From the point of view of evaluating impact, and for that matter for the
release notes, I think it's good to have big-non-crit-path-enhancements and
leaf functionality categorized separately. Both of them would need to be
self contained in the sense you're suggesting.
Sure, the primary measure is the overall impact on the OS. The
proposal is to treat "self-contained" features as "approved by
default", nothing more; features with large impact would still go
through the full process by overriding the default approval.
In fact, for that matter, wouldn't crit path updates _also_
benefit from the
"all relevant maintainers" rule?
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be "approved by default" as well. Many of the crit path
features however affect a large or extremely large package set (e.g.
the sysv->systemd script migration), in which case explicitly
involving every maintainer as the feature owner before even proposing
the feature wouldn't scale; that's where FESCo does need to step in as
a more efficient way to represent the large group of packagers.
Mirek