[Sugar-devel] [SoaS] Policy for activities for downstream inclusion

[Simon Schampijer]

On 09/15/2010 01:58 AM, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>  wrote:
>
>> Thanks David and Walter for the feedback,
>>
>> On 09/14/2010 04:09 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Farning<dfarning at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>   wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> what is the current status for activity releases in order to include
>>>>> them in distributions like Soas*? Do you guys need tarballs or did you
>>>>> switch over to construct the rpms from the .xo? For example the latest
>>>>> Paint rpm uses the .xo AFAIK (build even the binaries from the
>>>>> non-python sources in the bundle).
>>>>>
>>>>> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new
>>>>> releases? Any other notification that packagers need?
>>>>
>>>> In the .deb side of the universe, we prefer tarballs but we can work
>>>> directly from the git repository.
>>
>> We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball.
>>
>>> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ???
>>>
>>> -walter
>>
>> Well, the latest mails I have seen about activity releases (besides
>> Chat) does come from ASLO and only state the .xo. If there are tarballs
>> at d.sl.o they have not been announced ;D
>
> I've been uploading me since Bernie kindly un blocked my shell account, though I totally understand why others might not manage this workflow, there's already many hoops to jump though for a casual activity developer to do for a release.
>
> Are all the ASLO emails not enough? I'm getting three separate emails from the system for every release already!
>
> Regards,
> --Gary

Hi Gary,

for me having one email from ASLO is fine. But the tarball if it exist 
should be referenced in the mail.

Regards,
    Simon