Feature template update [was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule...]

[Matthew Miller]

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 at fedoraproject.org>