[Sugar-devel] Sugar and activities flag day

David Farning dfarning at gmail.com
Mon Sep 20 11:56:01 EDT 2010

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:26, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 18:09, Marco Pesenti Gritti <marco at marcopg.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org> wrote:
>>>> On 10 September 2010 13:41, Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org> wrote:
>>>>> Just wanted to summarize an enlightening conversation that just
>>>>> happened in #sugar:
>>>> No responses..surprising!
>>>> Let me try a bit harder then.
>>>> My thoughts/suggestions:
>>>> 1. Rename sugar-0.92 to Sugar-1.0
>>>> 2. Switch to pygi and GTK+ 3 for sugar-1.0
>>>> 3. Allow significant sugar API changes up until the sugar-1.0 API
>>>> freeze date, which I think would land mid-January 2011. These would be
>>>> subject to the usual review processes to ensure quality.
>>> The time might be a bit short to do both porting and API changes. An
>>> alternative would be to have a longer unstable cycle (probably in
>>> parallel to a stable 0.92). I have the feeling that porting stable
>>> changes to unstable for a long time might be too much work for us
>>> though. So perhaps we really have to break API two times (1.0 and
>>> 2.0)...
>> One way of seeing things that might make more palatable 0.92 == 1.0 is
>> that we are really still in the first iteration and 1.0 will be when
>> that first iteration reaches maturity, without big changes in the API.
>> After 1.0 we can start working on what will be one day 2.0 which
>> should be the second iteration of Sugar, hopefully using what we have
>> learned during these years.
>> This would mean that the next cycle would be devoted to rebasing on
>> top of GNOME 3 so we remain packageable in future distros and that the
>> next-gen activity APIs would only come afterwards.
> The hackers at #python in GIMPNet have proposed holding a hackfest for
> porting Sugar to introspection and thus getting PyGObject ready.
> Who else would be interested from the Sugar side? We'll also need
> sponsors for travel and venue. Right now Boston, Bolzano and Prague
> have been mentioned as possibilities. The GNOME Foundation will be
> able to fund some travel but it will be easier to get that funding if
> other organizations partner on this one.
> Regards,
> Tomeu
>> How does it sound?

I can't afford travel yet:( But I can commit all of AC's developers to
work remotely for the duration of the sprint.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list