The feature list looks great, but it looks like it's trying to bite off too much at once. - Supporting a particular repo type is an engineering smell (over-c

The feature list looks great, but it looks like it's trying to bite off too much at once. - Supporting a particular repo type is an engineering smell (over-complicated/over-opinionated/tightly-integrated); this should be repo-design-agnostic - The "dmno service" is also biting off too much, this should not be a concept inherent to the configuration library - Schemas should be optional - Data types are fine, but get complicated, especially when mapping between different data formats/containers/transports; it's probably better to start with only a couple types and grow them over time if needed - Inter-service dependency management is also too complex for this solution - Plugins are a good idea - Three different package types? Complexity... - The security features are great I get that you're trying to sell a product, and so having a big kitchen sink makes it more attractive to buy, but it makes for more complicated solutions which then annoy users.