[IAEP] Project hosting
Marco Pesenti Gritti
mpg at redhat.com
Tue May 27 22:54:56 CEST 2008
Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com
> <mailto:gdk at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, David Farning wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 15:32 -0400, Ivan Krstić wrote:
>
> Why the seemingly purposeless duplication of
> infrastructure which outsiders are almost sure to find
> confusing? While OLPC's development lists (in particular
> sugar@) serve their purpose, no new lists are needed.
> While OLPC is providing adequate code hosting
> infrastructure, no new hosting infrastructure is needed,
> and so on. Let's please start offering sugarlabs.org
> <http://sugarlabs.org> code hosting when OLPC rejects a
> project and not before that. Until then, mirroring will
> suffice.
>
> Without clear purposes and responsibilities, _both_ projects
> suffer. From reading the archives of this mailing list and the
> wiki, I had come to the conclusion that the purpose of Sugar
> Labs was to develop a software stack that could be passed on
> to others for customization and distribution.
>
> On the other hand, OLPC is going to receive the Sugar stack
> from Sugar
> Labs and customize it for their machines. OPLC will be able
> focus on
> developing new laptops and deploying them.
>
>
> The critical question: does the OLPC organization agree with this
> assessment?
>
> Who is upstream for Sugar?
>
> --g
>
>
>
> If OLPC agrees , i think there is no need for new infraestructure as
> neurallis said.
>
> sugarlabs could be as open as it desires, with no need for new
> infraestructure.
Well, we need new infrastructure... the tinderbox machine we discussed
this morning is something that it's strongly needed for example.
But I completely agree that there is no point to move git repositories.
Marco
More information about the Its.an.education.project
mailing list