[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Proposed new feature: Provers



Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 16:00 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 09:30:28AM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
And what criteria are those? I don't think this is the first feature that has been mostly a packaging affair. Last I checked our definition of feature was "something worth mentioning in the release notes."
I agree. Here the issue is merely communicating something new and nice.
Alan is willing to do the associated paperwork so this is certainly a
feature.

Haskell support is a feature; is there a reason why this shouldn't be as
well?

I think it depends on how its written up. For instance, this past FESCo meeting, there was a Feature Proposal: python-nss -- python bindings to libnss.

Really that's just a package, not a feature. However, if it was written as "Take steps to make FIPS 140 verification possible" and this was one of the steps taken, it would be a better Feature proposal. (Being able to say we've converted foo, bar, and baz important programs or X number of programs to python-nss would make it better yet).

So similarly, just saying Fedora has a collection of provers isn't a Feature. But saying, in Fedora 10 we've made an effort to include foo, bar, baz important provers for Target Audience so they can find all the tools they need to do X Type of Work. Similarly, "We've done work so that foo and bar can import and export the same file format", or other work to show how we're making the user experience better would make a stronger case for a feature.

-Toshio


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]