[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] [ANNOUNCE] Sucrose 0.88.0 Stable Release

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Hi Walter (and others).
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:07:55PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 04:32:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:35:20PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0.88 is the latest version of Sugar, consisting of Glucose, the base
>>>>>> system environment; and Fructose, a set of demonstration activities. This
>>>>>> new release contains many new features, performance and code improvements,
>>>>>> bug fixes, and translations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to all involved!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to ask - again: Where is the official documented list of contents
>>>>> of Glucose and Fructose for each major release of Sugar?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I fail to locate it at http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.88/Notes and the
>>>>> directly referenced http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy is too broad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to check - for each of 0.84, 0.86 and 0.88 - how close to
>>>>> the official compositions we are in Debian currently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not post the detailed answer in an email response, but refer
>>>>> to the wiki page which is (supposed to) contain this info. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Its not changed for quite some time and can be found here:
>>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> It seems that page is not exactly what I am looking for, however.
>>>
>>> Or let me try throw a couple of trick questions:
>>
>> Risking getting tripped up...
>
> :-)
>
>
>>>  * Do newest release of Browse work on 0.84?
>>
>> I believe the answer is yes.
>
> Specifically for 0.84 I believe that some activities only supports the
> "redesigned toolbar", and judging from its Git source branching Browse is
> one of those.

Hmm. I was pretty sure that Browse had support for both styles of
toolbars. But apparently I am mistaken. As Peter mentioned, the
database in ASLO keeps track of which versions of which activities go
with the various Sucrose releases. I suppose those data should be in
the wiki somewhere as well, at least for Fructose.

>
> There might be other issues too, and the issue might have been fixed later
> on so that the 0.84 branch is no longer used so is a wrong measure for me as
> distributor to look for.
>
> I have been around long enough to have heard about it when the toolbar was
> redesigned, so am aware of that particular issue.  But others might not -
> and I would appreciate not having to rely on my own jusgement and code
> analysis but being able to lookup hard facts published by the upstream
> project.
>
>
>>>  * Is (newest releases of) jukebox and imageviewer part of 0.84?
>>
>> The maintainers of 0.84 would have to answer this question. They are
>> doing quite a bit of backporting.
>
> The question here was not if it _works_ with 0.84, but instead if it is
> considered as _part_ of the "core" Sugar environment.  So when you mention
> backporting efforts, I suspect that we are not talking about the same thing
> - or perhaps your use of "backporting" is what I would call "deriving".

I mean backporting in the sense that they are taking a number of
patches made for 0.88 and applying them to 0.84. So the definition of
"core" Sugar for 0.84 is a bit of a moving target. Not being a distro
person, I can only imagine that leading to some confusion, but for the
most part, the backporting is confined to strategic bug fixes as
opposed to redefinitions of components. There is a particular focus on
0.84 because it is being rolled out on the new OLPC hardware and in
many of the larger Sugar deployments.

> Sigh...  I know that mentioning "core Sugar" might spawn a discussion on its
> own. :-/
>
>
>>> If you do not care about tracking 0.84 any longer then what revision of
>>> which wiki page should I go look for latest info on that abandoned release?
>>
>> 0.84 has not been abandoned. There are several teams working on its
>> maintenance and support.
>
> Yeah, that's my impression too.  Thanks for reassuring that my big efforts
> on multi-branched packaging for Debian is not a total waste :-)
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJLtNsxAAoJECx8MUbBoAEhUcgP/2oTYG50FTqMXDL+7DsbrVJ/
> dU3Z58N0fA4HCHhN9pilKDCVujUvRGd6c03fOXc0FnjDCYPJ/ACl4lYZmRMoG04F
> LCR70n7UlVPyA8sEhCegY/OvxxmP6+RlOnzpLZrA+N3HknvXRY0shsU1eSv5oUMY
> d8jqvJyu5F45sE7+PfWXqcxGodUdTF2u0BwyV+/Jq8S2DJ1fDa58TRdcmYdcIRsD
> xuIF5n366V0PdDp8/Q9LsAIwytS5AISvurxYLBrY8uqTgJ4VZL2bcLA1BM3imstB
> Ccs7WpVcx0UhQsokyvFnSoK74yedjTBUqTq3IaMd15euZbzN3ok5CZraLQPOGr60
> tXJVHz+jqFL2EnYqhd3qytV8Jzcrb96vvLVBaPqqhuxAJMM3nZaiW7yIwJwqc2+0
> bxsMQIS5WsK3LOkgKadfOTNickGF5m9u3Xnu1R5tKefA2hzjT1OJkQqkATAmyuIu
> wZZ2F5o/tfI6BCP6qE337+0ptdqyQZXeMs9r3jxTaNyt2kwT9TrONsbtshnP/4TB
> KKKOr9Y0xH1n/s1I+hE7gCkNVEhTWooGllq0JuP/8e0Z64g0gTDGRYywXoAbwdQ7
> mQ9HeeTvTYbgYJ2IAKFcLqSOGFtuktWGf8tG2sBj/hnZISpK89xhak1SuPXfj+ml
> lQldiCk1b4SugeYa6H5o
> =7FYH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org