[sugar] Relationships w/ upstream.
C. Scott Ananian
Mon Jul 7 17:17:16 EDT 2008
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of "upstream." Sugar
> developers are cognizant of the needs of OLPC and will go out of their
> way to make sure that the (by far) largest Sugar deployment is
> successful. Has this been questioned?
No, and it's good to hear regardless.
>> At the moment, I've been assured that upstream does *not* want to fork
>> sugar, and in fact will go out of its way, making special exceptions
>> for OLPC patches which conflict with sugar freezes.
> At present, there is no reason to fork Sugar that I am aware of and as
> with any project, there is a mechanism for requesting "special
> exceptions", for example CJB's request regarding OHM and the Sugar
> Control Panel.
> It is hard to tell from #7381 what the heated discussion on IRC may
> have been about. There is certainly not consensus regarding the merits
> of the "free-form" Home View, but it is being accepted upstream,
> AFAIK. We do plan some user studies of this View, the results of which
> may (or may not) be compelling evidence to reopen this decision.
Yes, things are going well right now, and the current issues are not
problematic. I was just trying to preemptively communicate
expectations, so that any future minor fork of sugar is not seen as
adversarial, but instead a natural solution to allow decoupled
development -- in the same way we use small forks to handle such
issues in other components (such as telepathy, initscripts, etc).
I think we're all agreed that even small forks have large long-term
costs, and we'd prefer to avoid them where at all possible -- which we
all agree seems to be the case at present.
( http://cscott.net/ )
More information about the Sugar-devel