Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

David Farning
As a data point for other decision makers and a follow up to some of
the recent threads on the future of Sugar, I would like to share
Activity Central's Sugar priorities for the next six months.

Activity Central supports the recent HTML5 + JS work that is going
into sugar .100. It has the potential to take the OLPC vision to any
device which runs a browser while simultaneously increasing the
potential activity developer pool by several orders of magnitude. This
is an excellent area for community lead research. Activity Central
will be doing activity side work to test the viability of the
framework for client deployments.

As a more incremental approach, Activity Central will continue our
deployment-centric work by porting Dextrose to Ubuntu. A concern among
deployments is the future availability of hardware to support their
current investment. Deployments are concerned that laptop support will
stop before tablets are ready for use in the field. Because of the
controversial nature of this work and the potential for disruption it
may cause to the Association, we understand if some people would
prefer to sit this out.

Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
use on hardware not sold by the Association?

Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu (ongoing)
Phase two will be opening the project to the community.
Phases three will be testing and piloting by deployments.

--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Samuel Greenfeld
Disclaimer: These are my personal views, and are not the official views of OLPC.

  • It should be fine to discuss anything Sugar-related on the sugarlabs.org development lists.  Sugar Labs does not use any OLPC hosting services, and is an independent group as part of the Software Freedom Conservancy.

  • I cannot comment on future OLPC hardware plans.  If OLPC was to publicly announce their intent to go in a similar direction the laptop.org mailing lists might be appropriate; however otherwise they may not be.

    It sounds like you are discussing a software change for different hardware than anything OLPC related though.

    Other vendors besides OLPC have sold laptops with Sugar preinstalled on top of Fedora or Ubuntu in the past, so you are not breaking new ground.

  • Updating the Sugar release in Ubuntu sounds like something everyone could benefit from, not just Dextrose users.  Is there any reason not to base most of this work starting with upstream Sugar & existing Ubuntu packages?

  • In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.

    While some of these changes may make it back upstream it would be nice to see EduJAM and OLPC-SF discussion about trying to limit this.

    I know Activity Central is trying to publicly state a bit what they're up to, and Walter does his weekly "state of the union" reports.  I also personally hear some private updates as well.  But the different working styles of the various groups is starting to confuse me as to which way Sugar is going as a whole.



On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, David Farning <[hidden email]> wrote:
As a data point for other decision makers and a follow up to some of
the recent threads on the future of Sugar, I would like to share
Activity Central's Sugar priorities for the next six months.

Activity Central supports the recent HTML5 + JS work that is going
into sugar .100. It has the potential to take the OLPC vision to any
device which runs a browser while simultaneously increasing the
potential activity developer pool by several orders of magnitude. This
is an excellent area for community lead research. Activity Central
will be doing activity side work to test the viability of the
framework for client deployments.

As a more incremental approach, Activity Central will continue our
deployment-centric work by porting Dextrose to Ubuntu. A concern among
deployments is the future availability of hardware to support their
current investment. Deployments are concerned that laptop support will
stop before tablets are ready for use in the field. Because of the
controversial nature of this work and the potential for disruption it
may cause to the Association, we understand if some people would
prefer to sit this out.

Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
use on hardware not sold by the Association?

Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu (ongoing)
Phase two will be opening the project to the community.
Phases three will be testing and piloting by deployments.

--
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
On 7 October 2013 19:24, Samuel Greenfeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

  • Updating the Sugar release in Ubuntu sounds like something everyone could benefit from, not just Dextrose users.  Is there any reason not to base most of this work starting with upstream Sugar & existing Ubuntu packages?

+1
 
  • In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.

Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing list since a long long time, well before the github switch).

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
In reply to this post by David Farning
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
use on hardware not sold by the Association?

Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu (ongoing)
Phase two will be opening the project to the community.
Phases three will be testing and piloting by deployments.

I would like to understand better what you mean with porting. It should just be matter of writing package specs  (or really fixing the existing ones...), no?

If there is any more work involved strongly suggest  you first discuss it on this mailing list, then have it done upstream directly. That way the whole community will benefit from your effort and you will benefit from the community input. Upstreaming after the fact rarely works.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Gonzalo Odiard-3
In reply to this post by Daniel Narvaez
In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.

Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing list since a long long time, well before the github switch).


I think the change was the movement to github.
If we can add sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations,
that can be solved.

Gonzalo


 
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel



_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.

Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing list since a long long time, well before the github switch).


I think the change was the movement to github.
If we can add sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations,
that can be solved.

I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at least I don't see differences with the past.

We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on that. 


--
Daniel Narvaez


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Gonzalo Odiard-3
In reply to this post by Daniel Narvaez



On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning <[hidden email]> wrote:
Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
use on hardware not sold by the Association?

Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu (ongoing)
Phase two will be opening the project to the community.
Phases three will be testing and piloting by deployments.

I would like to understand better what you mean with porting. It should just be matter of writing package specs  (or really fixing the existing ones...), no?


I agree. Have Sugar working on Ubuntu would be great, but would be mainly:
* Solve dependencies in ubuntu (update/fix packages)
* Make Sugar work with other dependencies when is not possible.

In the first case, upstream is Ubuntu, in the second case, upstream is Sugarlabs. 
In both cases, working with upstream is the best solution in the long run,
while I understand for Dextrose is useful have some "exclusive" features,
I hope you avoid the shortcut and plan thinking in the future.

Gonzalo

 
If there is any more work involved strongly suggest  you first discuss it on this mailing list, then have it done upstream directly. That way the whole community will benefit from your effort and you will benefit from the community input. Upstreaming after the fact rarely works.

_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel



_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Martin Langhoff
In reply to this post by David Farning
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, David Farning
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a more incremental approach, Activity Central will continue our
> deployment-centric work by porting Dextrose to Ubuntu.

From a "deploy to XOs PoV" that sounds like a ton of work. You'll
grind against a lot of little problems.

Fedora is no longer behind nor problematic. That was very much true in
earlier times. Some innovative things in Fedora (ie: systemd) have
been very well integrated with the Sugar stack. And some changes in
the Ubuntu pipeline are likely to cause some havoc.

From a "work for AC customers already using Ubuntu", it probably makes
more sense. Still, the odd directions Ubuntu seems to be going are a
bit of a wildcard. I honestly hope that they settle a bit and make
life for their downstreams a bit easier.

cheers,


m
--
 [hidden email]
 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

James Cameron-2
I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
generally follow.

(On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
stability or direction of Fedora.  So few people I know use it.)

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

James Cameron-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Narvaez
Daniel Narvaez wrote:

> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > Daniel wrote:
> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > > > Samuel Wrote:
> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
> > > > seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of
> > > change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing
> > > list since a long long time, well before the github switch).
> >
> > I think the change was the movement to github.  If we can add
> > sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, that can
> > be solved.
>
> I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is
> developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at
> least I don't see differences with the past.

I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
participation in development has been confined to those who take the
trouble to visit a web site.

(The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).

So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
own".

And, actually, I'm fine with that.  A smaller group can achieve more
if they are able to use these new tools effectively.

I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
that a review counter or tracking?  Has there been a measure of review
rate?

> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
> not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
> interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
> all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
> that.

I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
communication.

Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
to be the patches themselves.  They should also have a from address
that matches the originator.

What used to happen was easy.  Get a mail with the patch.  Scroll it
down while reviewing it.  When the cognitive dissonance hits a
threshold, hit the reply button and begin a comment.  Press send.

Mail is a store and forward architecture.  I can use mail without
having to wait for an internet connection.  Github is not so lucky:

$ ping -n github.com
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 288.440/606.297/1049.233/262.776 ms, pipe 2

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
participation in development has been confined to those who take the
trouble to visit a web site.

(The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).

So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
own".

Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done these days is going upstream.
 
And, actually, I'm fine with that.  A smaller group can achieve more
if they are able to use these new tools effectively.

I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
that a review counter or tracking?

I can't parse this question.
 
 Has there been a measure of review
rate?

We usually have 1 reviewer per patch. All the patches that have been submitted so far has been reviewed and landed.

> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
> not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
> interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
> all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
> that.

I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
communication.

Because if we send patches to the mailing I'm pretty sure some people will be annoyed. In fact someone got annoyed when he was added to the reviewers group and started getting email.
 
Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
to be the patches themselves.  They should also have a from address
that matches the originator.

I highly doubt what you want is possible, at least without doing substantial work... If you have time feel free.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Manuel Quiñones-2
In reply to this post by James Cameron-2
2013/10/7 James Cameron <[hidden email]>:

> Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > Daniel wrote:
>> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > > > Samuel Wrote:
>> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
>> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
>> > > > seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.
>> > >
>> > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of
>> > > change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing
>> > > list since a long long time, well before the github switch).
>> >
>> > I think the change was the movement to github.  If we can add
>> > sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, that can
>> > be solved.
>>
>> I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is
>> developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at
>> least I don't see differences with the past.
>
> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
> trouble to visit a web site.
>
> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
>
> So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
> though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
> conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
> own".
>
> And, actually, I'm fine with that.  A smaller group can achieve more
> if they are able to use these new tools effectively.
>
> I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
> that a review counter or tracking?  Has there been a measure of review
> rate?
>
>> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
>> not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
>> interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
>> all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
>> that.
>
> I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
> flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
> communication.

James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.

At least starters find very odd emails with patch format in pain text.
 At least one reviewer (me) find very odd copy/pasting the email
content to a file in order to give the patch a test.  And we had the
problem of email-patches being forgotten in the flow of threads.  That
is fixed, with zero patches in queue.

As Daniel said, you can receive email notifications from GitHub by
watching repositories.

> Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
> to be the patches themselves.  They should also have a from address
> that matches the originator.
>
> What used to happen was easy.  Get a mail with the patch.  Scroll it
> down while reviewing it.  When the cognitive dissonance hits a
> threshold, hit the reply button and begin a comment.  Press send.
>
> Mail is a store and forward architecture.  I can use mail without
> having to wait for an internet connection.  Github is not so lucky:
>
> $ ping -n github.com
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 288.440/606.297/1049.233/262.776 ms, pipe 2
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel



--
.. manuq ..
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
On 8 October 2013 00:08, Manuel Quiñones <[hidden email]> wrote:
James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.

Exactly.

The sooner people understand that, the sooner we will stop having discussions about the review process over and over :)

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

James Cameron-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Narvaez
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> it.
>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing
> sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done
> these days is going upstream.

Good.  I only know of four Sugars.  Sugar upstream, Dextrose, what is
in OLPC OS, and what is in the Australian builds.  There might be
more, but I'm not aware of them.  I also don't know the difference
between each.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Peter Robinson
In reply to this post by James Cameron-2
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
> be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
> generally follow.
>
> (On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
> stability or direction of Fedora.  So few people I know use it.)

So few people I know use Windows but that doesn't mean it's no longer
prevalent, from what I've seen there's been quite a large swing back
to it due to the problems with Ubuntu and most of the upstream
developers of a lot of the stack that sugar relies upon now use Fedora
as their core development OS because of the issues they see with
Ubuntu.

Peter
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
In reply to this post by James Cameron-2
On 8 October 2013 00:22, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> it.
>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing
> sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done
> these days is going upstream.

Good.  I only know of four Sugars.  Sugar upstream, Dextrose, what is
in OLPC OS, and what is in the Australian builds.  There might be
more, but I'm not aware of them.  I also don't know the difference
between each.

Australia builds have apparently a few non-yet-upstreamed patches. Both Gonzalo and Walter are very much involved in upstream work, I'm absolutely confident they will upstream as soon as it make sense.

OLPC OS is pretty much all upstream, as far as I know.

Dextrose. I know they accumulated non-upstream patches in the past. We landed a couple of features coming from there before the freeze. I'm not sure what is going on these days, which is why I wanted to know more from David about the "porting" they are doing.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Samuel Greenfeld
In reply to this post by James Cameron-2
This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate thread).

My understanding is that deployments nowadays are the primary parties funding Sugar development.  And the deployments or their contractors sometimes duplicate work, run into debates upstreaming things, and/or may choose to keep some things semi-private to differentiate their products.

So apart from major functionality like HTML5 activities, a lot of peripheral development is happening downstream-first.  And when we do try to do major cross-group development like the GTK3 port, this has lead to finger-pointing behind the scenes where it is claimed others are not doing what they promised.

To the best of my knowledge no single organization currently employs enough developers and/or contractors to keep Sugar development alive.  I am not certain what the best approach to take is when this is the case.


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> it.
>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing
> sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done
> these days is going upstream.

Good.  I only know of four Sugars.  Sugar upstream, Dextrose, what is
in OLPC OS, and what is in the Australian builds.  There might be
more, but I'm not aware of them.  I also don't know the difference
between each.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Walter Bender-4
In reply to this post by Manuel Quiñones-2
My 2 cents:

Since the switch to github, we've have a much better turn-around on
reviews and we've attacked new reviewers. I think those data speak for
themselves. As Daniel said, we welcome help further shaping the
process.

regards.

-walter

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Manuel Quiñones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2013/10/7 James Cameron <[hidden email]>:
>> Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>>> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>> > Daniel wrote:
>>> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>> > > > Samuel Wrote:
>>> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
>>> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
>>> > > > seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.
>>> > >
>>> > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of
>>> > > change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing
>>> > > list since a long long time, well before the github switch).
>>> >
>>> > I think the change was the movement to github.  If we can add
>>> > sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, that can
>>> > be solved.
>>>
>>> I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is
>>> developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at
>>> least I don't see differences with the past.
>>
>> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
>> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
>> trouble to visit a web site.
>>
>> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
>>
>> So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
>> though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
>> conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
>> own".
>>
>> And, actually, I'm fine with that.  A smaller group can achieve more
>> if they are able to use these new tools effectively.
>>
>> I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
>> that a review counter or tracking?  Has there been a measure of review
>> rate?
>>
>>> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
>>> not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
>>> interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
>>> all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
>>> that.
>>
>> I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
>> flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
>> communication.
>
> James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.
>
> At least starters find very odd emails with patch format in pain text.
>  At least one reviewer (me) find very odd copy/pasting the email
> content to a file in order to give the patch a test.  And we had the
> problem of email-patches being forgotten in the flow of threads.  That
> is fixed, with zero patches in queue.
>
> As Daniel said, you can receive email notifications from GitHub by
> watching repositories.
>
>> Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
>> to be the patches themselves.  They should also have a from address
>> that matches the originator.
>>
>> What used to happen was easy.  Get a mail with the patch.  Scroll it
>> down while reviewing it.  When the cognitive dissonance hits a
>> threshold, hit the reply button and begin a comment.  Press send.
>>
>> Mail is a store and forward architecture.  I can use mail without
>> having to wait for an internet connection.  Github is not so lucky:
>>
>> $ ping -n github.com
>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 288.440/606.297/1049.233/262.776 ms, pipe 2
>>
>> --
>> James Cameron
>> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
> --
> .. manuq ..
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel



--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Daniel Narvaez
In reply to this post by Samuel Greenfeld
On 8 October 2013 01:07, Samuel Greenfeld <[hidden email]> wrote:
This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate thread).

To simplify things I will only answer about the 0.100 release cycle. Things have changed a lot anyway and it's probably not worth focusing on the past.
 
My understanding is that deployments nowadays are the primary parties funding Sugar development.  And the deployments or their contractors sometimes duplicate work, run into debates upstreaming things, and/or may choose to keep some things semi-private to differentiate their products.

There has been debate only about one set of patches which was too big and complicated to review. Someone took care of splitting it up in the end though and it landed.

I'm not aware of duplicate work. I'm not aware of semi-private things used to differentiate products.
 
So apart from major functionality like HTML5 activities, a lot of peripheral development is happening downstream-first.  And when we do try to do major cross-group development like the GTK3 port, this has lead to finger-pointing behind the scenes where it is claimed others are not doing what they promised.

I don't think a lot of development is happening downstream. I have to admit I don't have much visibility about Dextrose/Activity Central though.

I think it's fine for some development to land downstream first, as long as it is discussed openly from the beginning. It's often a good way to try things out...
 
To the best of my knowledge no single organization currently employs enough developers and/or contractors to keep Sugar development alive.  I am not certain what the best approach to take is when this is the case.

I'm more concerned that even summing up the resources, there might not be enough to keep development alive. It really worried me that very little testing, bug triaging and bug fixing is happening for 0.100.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

Walter Bender-4
In reply to this post by Daniel Narvaez
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
>> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
>> trouble to visit a web site.
>>
>> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
>>
>> So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
>> though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
>> conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
>> own".
>
>
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" seems to
> be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

I am only aware of one group "developing their own version of Sugar":
Activity Central. There is the Sugar Network project as well, but that
is more about glue around Sugar. Gonzalo and I are working with Sugar
upstream in Australia (although we are ahead of master in a few places
as Sugar 100 has been in freeze).

>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing sugar on
> their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done these days is
> going upstream.
>

regards.

-walter
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
12