[sugar] Release schedule and process

[Marco Pesenti Gritti]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
<bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
>  | Blessing a browser is not going to remove competition.
>  |
>  | In practice, GNOME blesses a browser and despite most of the
>  | distributor/users are using another one, with no interoperability
>  | issues.
>
>  This is the key example:  Gnome has an official browser (Epiphany) and an
>  official mail client (Evolution).  I don't know anybody who uses either on
>  their own computers.  Yet most still have both installed.  This is stupid
>  and wasteful.

That's a distribution choice. Fedora doesn't install epiphany by default.

>  In truth, I think we are in agreement.
>
>  As I said before, we should maintain two builds: sugar-base and
>  sugar-demo.  sugar-base is essentially a virtual machine for Activities.
>  It does not come with any activities; it is just the empty shell.
>  sugar-demo is an example build, containing a complete set of activities to
>  show what we imagine a typical sugar installation to look like.  Both of
>  these builds should be built whenever there is a change, like joyride.
>  Most developers will run sugar-demo.  Most users will run custom builds
>  created by their deployments.  Deployments will create custom builds by
>  starting with a release version of the sugar-base build and using a
>  customization system to add Activities.  The resulting custom build may be
>  similar to sugar-demo, but need not contain all the activities in
> sugar-demo.

I'm thinking and talking about upstream development, schedule and
sources, not about builds. But yeah, leaving that aside I don't think
we disagree.

Marco