[Debian-olpc-devel] Sugar 0.90
jonas at jones.dk
Wed Jul 28 19:27:23 UTC 2010
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 02:39:01PM -0400, Luke Faraone wrote:
>On 07/28/2010 01:54 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> What was news to me - and that I still do not find in your  even
>> now reading it again, is that what David indicates as a larger
>> coordinated plan related to that.
>Oh, right. I didn't know about that either, but, as David said, I
>suspect that is because the idea is still in the planning stage.
>On 07/28/2010 02:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> As I wrote earlier, I suggest we explicitly promote those activities
>> in our long description field as nice activities due to them being
>> coded flexible enough to support all of the branches that we track in
>> Any opinions on that? Suggestions on actual wording?
>No idea. I personally find it commendable from a development point of
>view, but I'm not sure the best way to express that to users.
Perhaps not really important to users after all, but only to developers.
Ideally users _are_ developers - that was one of the original visions of
the Sugar design - but this is long-term and too big for us to push:
Should be driven by upstream.
So if noone else comes up with a proposed wording to advertise this, I
guess we simply leave it for now.
>By the way, I've noticed informally via IRC that some people are
>confused by the "sugar-SOMETHING-activity-LOWESTBRANCH" naming. From
>what I understand, it's LOWESTBRANCH and later. Maybe it might be good
>to expressly state "This package is compatible with Sugar X and later."
>(yes, I know it's duplicating what's already in the deps, but it's
Good point. Let's do that!
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Debian-olpc-devel