[Dextrose] Dextrose-3 achieves feature freeze

Anish Mangal anishmangal2002 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 12:46:56 EDT 2011

Hash: SHA1

On 09/01/2011 10:11 PM, Anish Mangal wrote:
> Hi,
> This mail is intended as a notification that Dextrose-3 has achieved
> feature freeze. Credit must go to Sascha(AC), Aleksey(AC),
> Jerry(OLPC.AU), Simon(OLPC) and David(AC) for this to happen. Most of
> the details concerning Feature Freeze are captured here [1][2] (wiki
> pages will be updated soon).

and Sridhar (OLPC.AU)  (sorry for the extra noise)

> The major issues and decisions gating this milestone were:
> * Identifying tickets for Alpha-2 (19 Sep) and Alpha-3 (17 Oct)
> releases, and estimating the time they would take to fix.
> * Deciding what version of sugar dextrose-3 would be based on.
> * Dependant on above, deciding the base OS dextrose-3 would use.
> - - - - - - - - -
> The last two topics above deserve some explanation. While dextrose-3
> alpha-1 was being developed, it was assumed that we would basing it on
> sugar0.9x/fedora-14. However, the new 0.9x has quite a few collaboration
> issues, and without collaboration working stably, the whole point of
> dextrose-3 w.r.t it being used by deployments would be defeated. This
> made it a significant decision (one, which I believe caused the one week
> delay in reaching feature freeze). The choices against us were:
> * Sugar 0.94/fedora14
> * Sugar 0.88/fedora14
> * Sugar 0.88/fedora11 (essentially the platform dextrose-2 is based on)
> While coming to this decision, all these three options were seriously
> considered. 0.88/f11 was the last fallback option we had. We were
> somewhat certain that 0.88/f14 would have worked, but 0.94/f14 was the
> most ideal alternative. Staying with 0.94/f14 would have meant that:
> * We stay in sync with OLPC 11.x, and upstream sugar 0.9x. This is a
> major advantage considering maintenance and packaging overheads,
> including backporting, upstreaming patches in the future.
> * Fedora 11 was EOL-ed a while ago, and has numerous inherent problems.
> * By the time 0.9x collab is eventually ready, it would be better than
> 0.88 collab.
> Comment: One point that was raised during these discussions was that
> while developing collab 0.9x code, the procedure followed was not good
> coding practice. Heavily broken new collab code was pushed to trunk and
> then its fixing was started. What should perhaps been followed was a
> separate branch should have been used for new collab and only merged
> when it was stable enough [3] (btw, that link is reference to a very
> long and fruitful discussion about deciding sugar version ;))
> Thus, an analysis was carried out about current readiness (existing
> issues), rate of bugfixing, and comparison of workability with the 0.88
> collaboration. At the end of this, I came to the following conclusions:
> * The current 0.9x collab is actually not too bad, but there are still
> some high priority issues remaining.
> * The collaboration in 0.88 was somewhat buggy, and those would likely
> not be fixed anytime soon.
> * Collaboration bugs are being fixed at a good rate as of now.
> This led me to believe that if AC were to work together with OLPC on
> collaboration, there is very little reason it will not be fixed by the
> time 0.94 is actually released. It is also a high priority for OLPC
> 11.3.0 as well. The way in which AC could contribute to fixing collab is
> that it need not be fixing the collab bugs directly (as they are complex
> and require knowledge of collab code) but help with other sugar related
> issues.
> '''So, with the above in mind, dextrose-3 would be based on sugar
> 0.94/fedora-14.'''
> [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Dextrose/3/Feature_Freeze
> [2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Dextrose/3/Sugar_Version
> [3] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/2011-08-22#i_2688362

- -- 
Anish Mangal
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the Dextrose mailing list