[sugar] did the recent launch changes get into a build?

[Michael Stone]

Albert Calahan wrote:

> These don't have ChangeLog files. 

Fixing this is our top priority build-system work (where "us" currently
means cjb, c_scott, and m_stone, though others are welcome to
contribute!). To summarize our current thinking:

  * In order to get good ChangeLog data, we think we should refuse to
    include packages that don't include ChangeLog entries.

  * We will generate a list of packages that were not included because
    of missing ChangeLog entries so it will be very obvious if your
    package was not included.

  * In the future, we will try to parse RPM ChangeLogs, activity NEWS
    files, &etc; however, in the short term, we're just going to examine
    the file public_rpms/<branch>/ChangeLog

  * We have agreed that the first person who implements a working
    ChangeLog parser-aggregator shall decide the exact format of this
    file.

> If I later run the autoupdater, what is the installed version
> going to look like? (will the autoupdater refuse to run?)

I don't understand your question well enough to answer it; can you
please rephrase it?

In particular, to what does "autoupdater" refer? The "olpc-update"
incremental network updater? 

The autoreinstallation Forth script (typically run from USB)?

> BTW, next time you might want to branch off for the
> stable stuff instead of branching off for development.
> Things tend to stay neater that way, especially if you
> can't easily declare a stable branch to be dead for good.

"Branching" is a bit of an oversimplification of the actual arrangement,
which is more like a "layering" than a "branching". 

Nevertheless, thanks for the advice.

Michael