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(a)fedoraproject.org>