On 7/7/08, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of "upstream." Sugar >> developers are cognizant of the needs of OLPC and will go out of their >> way to make sure that the (by far) largest Sugar deployment is >> successful. Has this been questioned? > > No, and it's good to hear regardless.
+1 on what walter said. >>> At the moment, I've been assured that upstream does *not* want to fork >>> sugar, and in fact will go out of its way, making special exceptions >>> for OLPC patches which conflict with sugar freezes. >> >> At present, there is no reason to fork Sugar that I am aware of and as >> with any project, there is a mechanism for requesting "special >> exceptions", for example CJB's request regarding OHM and the Sugar >> Control Panel. >> >> It is hard to tell from #7381 what the heated discussion on IRC may >> have been about. There is certainly not consensus regarding the merits >> of the "free-form" Home View, but it is being accepted upstream, >> AFAIK. We do plan some user studies of this View, the results of which >> may (or may not) be compelling evidence to reopen this decision. > > Yes, things are going well right now, and the current issues are not > problematic. I was just trying to preemptively communicate > expectations, so that any future minor fork of sugar is not seen as > adversarial, but instead a natural solution to allow decoupled > development -- in the same way we use small forks to handle such > issues in other components (such as telepathy, initscripts, etc). That makes totally sense to me. Marco _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
