[Sugar-devel] review process follow-up.

Tomeu Vizoso tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Wed May 26 07:09:38 EDT 2010


On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:56, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:35AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> I want them to stop doing redundant work,
>
> Please tell me if I'm doing redundant work, and I'll back off.  It is
> often difficult to know what work is being done, so without knowledge of
> this it is quite likely that redundancy will occur.

Everybody is supposed to tell their colleagues when they are doing
redundant work without a good reason for that. I wasn't referring to
you because you read and participate on the mailing lists, but there's
quite a bit of Sugar work being done out there that we don't know
about.

>> waiting for others to do
>> something that nobody ends up doing,
>
> I think a downstream might want to wait for others to do something that
> nobody ends up doing ... that's a potential result of prioritisation by
> the downstream.

Not referring to that, a good example is the F11 on XO-1 effort. I
talked to two deployments and both told me that they were waiting for
OLPC to release a stable version, but OLPC had publicly stated that
they would not work on that. This case of miscommunication set the
f11-on-xo1 effort some months back for no good reason.

I don't see why a SLs developer has to take a plane in order to
realize the situation and put people talking together.

> (Why did you fix that, James, when there were more important things to
> fix?)
>
>> and stop waiting for SLs to do
>> what they need without having to even talk about it.
>
> I'm puzzled at that concept ... I can't see how SL can do something
> without any communication at all.  ;-)
>
>> I know there are several people working in finding ways for resources
>> to reach upstream right now, but I find quite scary that SLs is seen
>> as a group with a strong identity that intends to control users of
>> Sugar.
>
> That's a side-effect of strong maintenance principles.  Control of the
> code means some control of users.  An alternative is a plethora of
> forks.  Lower barriers on a fork demonstrates less control of users.

But maintainers are supposed to come from downstreams, not paid by SLs.

Regards,

Tomeu

> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> _______________________________________________
> 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