[Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs Roadmap.

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 November 2013 13:10, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Classmate and Classmate variants are already quick wide spread in some
>> deployments, e.g., Argentina
>
>
> I wonder if we should try to get some classmates in the hands of Sugar Labs
> community members. It seems like the most solid hardware option we have for
> deployments at the moment.

I'll look into it.

>
>>
>> > * Chromebook
>>
>> At least one deployment is looking at this option.
>>
>
> Looking forward to know how this goes :)
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Another couple more for community evaluation (evaluation, testing,
>> > marketing)
>> >
>> > * Linux compatible ARM boards
>> > * Virtualbox
>>
>> SoaS is our current offering for Virtualbox (As you pointed out in a
>> previous thread, it is a two-step process to install. In my
>> experience, that is 1 too many for our audience. Something we may be
>> able to address by approaching some of the VM suppliers.)
>
>
> We are crossing threads here but... I think it would be great to have a
> single installer but (without having tried it!) the current installation
> process doesn't seem terribly bad. I feel that documenting it better and
> turning it into the first thing you see when you click "downloads" could go
> a long way.
>
>>
>> > - R&D resources
>> >
>> > I feel balance with addressing existing deployments needs is not a
>> > question
>> > Sugar Labs can or should answer. We should encourage and support both,
>> > it's
>> > up to companies and volunteers involved to see how much of either they
>> > could
>> > or should be doing.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> That said, the discipline you have imparted on us regarding unit tests
>> is a step that the community can take. Maybe one of our priorities
>> should be to dust off some basic automatic testing for activities as
>> well. OLPC used to have such a system in place.
>>
>
> Of course I'm all for more unit tests :)
>
> The buildbot is already trying to start and close activities on every build
> but it would be great if people wrote more comprehensive unit and UI tests,
> similarly to what we are doing in the shell. Get them to run into
> sugar-build/buildbot would be trivial...

Maybe we can work on an example for an activity and then propagate (via GCI).

>
>>
>> >
>> > We are not a company, we have no resources to allocate. But there are
>> > lots
>> > of concrete things we can do to encourage people to allocate them. I'm
>> > really glad to see that Activity Central figured out how to devote
>> > resources
>> > to R&D. I hope you will be able to keep it up and more people will
>> > follow
>> > that example. We can leverage initiatives like Google Code. We can try
>> > crowd
>> > funding. We can apply for grants, as we have been doing sometimes
>> > successfully. We can keep lowering the barriers for volunteers, we have
>> > been
>> > making great progress on that. We can finally solve the un-marketability
>> > issue, attracting attention and energies and hence hopefully
>> > contributions.
>>
>> Google Code In starts on Nov. 18. But we can keep adding tasks over
>> the course of the contest. Please don't be shy about suggesting tasks.
>> And we could also use a few more mentors.
>
>
> I don't think I'm able to commit to be an "official" mentor but, as usual,
> I'll be answering as many questions as possible in irc/mailing lists when I
> am around.
>
> Sort of thinking to puth GConf -> GSettings on the list... And Wayland
> support but that's probably too complex for GCI.

GConf to GSettings is definitely GCI caliber introductory task worthy.

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