[Sugar-devel] Issue tracking on Github?

[Tony Anderson]

Welcome to the Sugar community (and its growing entropy)!

You are proposing, appropriately, a new way to handle version control 
for Sugar.

There is documented procedure to add new activities or to update 
activities on ASLO. This procedure is working with update notifications 
in the ASLO mailing list. This process is independent (and ignorant of) 
github. So your proposal is a change to current practice.

The separate tracking would be a byproduct of changing to a github based 
procedure from our current practice (https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/) In my 
experience all bugs/issues are reported here whether against a specific 
Sugar activity (say Etoys) or against a component of Sugar.

I am not sure whether Sugar is supported as a desktop by all GNU 
machines. In particular, 32-bit Ubuntu is not supported. Debian dropped 
the Record activity because it does not use gstreamer1.0 or gtk3. This 
is one of the eight protected activities which are considered essential 
to a running Sugar. As far as I know, SOAS does not offer an 'install' 
option.

You are right about the issue of which activity versions support which 
Sugar releases. This is complicated by the factor that some ASLO entries 
have more recent versions stored as 'earlier versions'. Someone needs to 
grab the handle and set up an ASLO system that can identify which 
activities work with which versions and make potentially multiple 
versions visible in ASLO as necessary.

During the recent GCI, Walter Bender and some of the participants came 
up with a scheme which allows an activity with a binary blob to identify 
the XO model and configure with the appropriate blob at run-time. I 
suspect there are activities which need this fix.

Tony

On 04/03/2016 12:38 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> On 2 April 2016 at 22:18, Tony Anderson <tony_anderson at usa.net 
> <mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net>> wrote:
>
>     The Sugar activities, which represent 90% or more of the Sugar
>     lines of code, are being relocated to the github accounts of
>     individual developer/maintainers - not under a single Sugar account.
>
>
> I think that is fine :) If they would like to make their activity 
> 'official' then they can ask to be invited to the github.com/sugarlabs 
> <http://github.com/sugarlabs> organization, and then after they accept 
> the invitation, they can go to github.com/username/repo/settings 
> <http://github.com/username/repo/settings> and at the bottom move the 
> repo to the org.
>
> (Or, someone who has joined the org with appropriate permissions can 
> fork their repo into the org, to maintain an 'official' copy of it, 
> and the initial developer or anyone else can then make pull requests 
> to it. However, I think the first way is better since then Github will 
> show that as the 'upstream' repo on network graph pages, eg 
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/network)
>
>     At the moment this information is recorded in the activity.info
>     <http://activity.info> file of the activity itself. This change
>     has not yet been implemented across all of the activities.
>
>
> Cool - that seems like a good milestone for Sugar Labs this year. I 
> added it to https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Vision_proposal_2016
>
>     I don't understand the process. However, it appears that OLPC
>     makes the release images. It decides which Sugar activities will
>     be included in a release. I gather that SugarLabs has no say in this.
>
>
> That sounds great to me :)
>
> As I understand it, Sugar is a desktop environment for all computers 
> that can run GNU, while OLPC makes "OLPC OS," which is a GNU 
> distribution tailored to XO laptops that packages Sugar and GNOME 
> desktops.
>
>     I don't know the technical details, but it would seem desirable to
>     separate issue tracking into separate Sugar and Sugar activity
>     branches.
>
>
> That is unavoidable with the way Github is designed.
>
>     The issues for Sugar related to releases (e.g. 0.108) and for
>     Sugar activities to version numbers. Update to Sugar activities
>     are independent from Sugar releases.
>
>
> However, surely some Sugar releases are requirements for some activity 
> versions? Eg, Chat 78 
> (http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4069) says it 
> requires a Sugar release of 0.86 or higher (and may not work with 
> 0.108, according to the metadata on that page)
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20160403/6492f6d2/attachment.html>