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

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Checking ASLO, Browse 112 is marked as working with 0.86; Browse 108
is marked as working with 0.84.

-walter

>>
>> 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
>



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