[Sugar-devel] Distributors mixing across Sugar branches (Was: Terminal v25 (attention distro managers!!))
dfarning at sugarlabs.org
Wed Apr 1 10:09:23 EDT 2009
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
>>On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:12, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>> - From a distributor point of view, it would be nice to be able to
>>> look at the Homepage of each part of Sugar (sugar-toolkit,
>>> sugar-base, sugar, hulahop, Browse, etc) and see not only a download
>>> link for the latest and greatest release of that piece, but a
>>> download link for the latest and greatest release for *each* of your
>>> development tracks (i.e. currently 0.82, 0.84 and "bleeding edge")
>>> and also a brief note on which changes are not backwards-compatible.
>>Also publishing the changelogs for each release would be good -
>>currently they seem to be only sent in the release announcement mail.
> With the risk of writing stuff that you all know better than me
> already, let me elaborate a bit on that:
> There is several levels of "changes". In Debian we may have the
> following, for each single software package:
> * VCS commit notes, describing each atomic edit
> * Changelog entries, grouped per release
> * NEWS items about eventual major changes, grouped by release
> * Status pages, tracking newest events for each branch
> * Long description, describing the product in few sentences
> * Short description, describing the product in one line
As our activity ecosystem matures, I think that we will want to focus
on setting a method for activity developers to _opt in_ to joining the
Sugar Labs release cycle.
It could start something simple like just a check list of items listed
you and Morgan listed above.
> I probably forgot some.
> Above list is ordered in after how often it typically needs updating.
> (yes, short and long descriptions are also a form of status info: Debian
> Sugar packages currently mention that Sugar is mostly for XOs ;-) ).
> An important issue (that I thankfully haven't noticed abused at
> Sugarlabs but frequently in Debian) is that each and every item in above
> channels should be somewhat self-contained. It is ok to reference
> external resources (like bug-number being closed) but it is wrong to
> write "Fixed earlier problem properly now" without mentioning *what*
> problem it is, in the entry itself.
> - Jonas
> - --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the Sugar-devel