[Sugar-devel] Migration from bugs.sugarlabs.org to Github

Tony Anderson tony_anderson at usa.net
Fri Dec 15 14:29:34 EST 2017

Hi, James

"Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying about GitHub.'

I would have thought this was obvious. THe porupose of GitHub is to provide
version control so that it is possible to tell from the history of changes what is
different in a new release.

As you said, it is not possible to fix 0.110 or 13.2.8 becasue of our inabliity to
relate changes to the version against which the change was made. I suspect Sugar may
be the only open source project which is unable to provide support for its current release.

What steps has Sugar-devel taken to get help from the WebKit project to fix these bugs in Fedora 18?


On Friday, 15 December, 2017 08:27 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> Thanks for that.  I expected there would be no resources.
> When I release a 13.2.9, it will be based on Fedora 18.  Using a more
> recent version of Fedora requires resources that aren't available here
> either.
> No, 13.2.9 and Fedora 18 won't support the WebKit2 verson of the
> Browse activity, because WebKit2 on Fedora 18 is very buggy.
> Browse-157.4 has all the new features of Browse-201.3 except for
> WebKit2 support.
> Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying about GitHub.
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 06:59:10AM +0200, Tony Anderson wrote:
>> Unfortunately, resources are not available here to test 0.112 on an XO. In
>> the past we have moved to the most recent build released by OLPC. There is
>> no urgency since this year we will have to continue with 13.2.8.
>> Do you propose to release a 13.2.9 based on Fedora 18 or some more recent
>> version? Will 13.2.9 support the WebKit2 version of the Browse.activity?
>> It seems ironic that in moving to github, we can no longer maintain version
>> control. I am not sure that I understand the technical issue in using 13.2.8
>> to obtain source copies of Sugar 0.110 for github. This should enable github
>> to perform its essential role to make visible the history of subsequent
>> changes.
>> Tony
>> On Friday, 15 December, 2017 05:24 AM, James Cameron wrote:
>>> I've checked, and there has been no testing of Sugar 0.112 on XOs
>>> since it was released on 9th October.
>>> Without any independent testing, I can't afford the risk of releasing
>>> a 13.2.9 with Sugar 0.112.
>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.112#Fedora_18_on_OLPC_XO explains how
>>> to update to Sugar 0.112 on an XO.
>>> Then use My Settings, Software Update, to update the activities.
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 06:43:57AM +1100, James Cameron wrote:
>>>> No, I don't think our technique is capable of fixing bugs in 0.110.
>>>> No, I don't think the XOs will be limited to 13.2.8, and 0.112 is
>>>> already available for XOs.
>>>> We do seem to be limited as a community in how 0.112 is being tested
>>>> to ensure there are no new bugs.
>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:52:22PM +0200, Tony Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Is our bug-fixing technique capable of fixing bugs present in 0.110? It
>>>>> appears
>>>>> the the XOs will be limited to 13.2.8 and 0.110 for the forseeable future.
>>>>> Tony
>>>>> On Thursday, 14 September, 2017 10:39 AM, James Cameron wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for the idea.  If someone is available to do it, great.
>>>>>> A quick bulk insert of issues could be done using the GitHub API, or
>>>>>> it could be done by hand by someone who knows nothing about Sugar.
>>>>>> But it feels like unrewarding and wasted work, and there is more
>>>>>> important work to do, such as fixing bugs or developing features.
>>>>>> We have no plans to shut down the Trac instance bugs.sugarlabs.org and
>>>>>> lose access to all those ideas.
>>>>>> Also moving them to GitHub seems very unlikely to accelerate the rate
>>>>>> at which tickets are resolved.  Firstly, because the very people who
>>>>>> might resolve tickets are busy moving tickets.  Secondly, because
>>>>>> those of us who are resolving tickets are able to do so with either
>>>>>> bugs.sugarlabs.org or GitHub issues.  Where the issue is lodged has no
>>>>>> relevance to fixing it.
>>>>>> We also lack regular testing and reporting of new issues; either in
>>>>>> bugs.sugarlabs.org or GitHub issues.  It has been nice to see GitHub
>>>>>> used more, but mostly that is because of account approval delays on
>>>>>> bugs.sugarlabs.org.
>>>>>> There are some bugs.sugarlabs.org bugs that we may never fix,
>>>>>> because the person who wanted them isn't interested any longer.
>>>>>> Bringing those bugs into GitHub issues could be disruptive and
>>>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 08:10:00AM +0000, Utkarsh Tiwari wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> While going through https://bugs.sugarlabs.org today, I came across
>>>>>>> a lot of tickets that were raised quite a long time back ( > 2
>>>>>>> years). I was wondering if we could do a GCI task of raising those
>>>>>>> tickets into their respective Github respositories which can
>>>>>>> accelerate the  rate at which our tickets get resolved.
>>>>>>> This way newcomers while going through the SugarLabs repositories
>>>>>>> will be able to easily spot the issues regarding the specific repo
>>>>>>> they are watching. As not everyone is aware of our bugzilla, this
>>>>>>> could be a nice alternative to catching contributor's attention to
>>>>>>> raised tickets. What do you all think?
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Utkarsh Tiwari
>>>>>>> References:
>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.sugarlabs.org/
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>>>>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>>> -- 
>>>> James Cameron
>>>> http://quozl.netrek.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list