[sugar] Relationships w/ upstream.
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Mon Jul 7 17:24:19 EDT 2008
On 7/7/08, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
>> 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.
+1 on what walter said.
>>> 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).
That makes totally sense to me.
More information about the Sugar-devel