On 22 October 2013 21:41, NoiseEHC wrote:
> You are right. The problem is that my views are exactly the opposite of
> the decided path to take.
>
I don't think that's true.
I'm one of the three developers involved in the web activities work and I
like many of your ideas. Manuel in his reply ap
On 22/10/2013 21:21, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
So that was my $0.02. Obviously it can be too late to change plans
but who knows. I have uploaded the source anyway so you can use it
if you want.
What I really don't understand is, if is all that easy why not be
involved and help?
T
I have put the ?latest? sources here:
https://github.com/NoiseEHC/sugar-webkit-native
It requires a "yum install webkitgtk3-devel" to be able to compile,
unfortunately my XO-1.75 says that there are no more mirrors to try
for mesa and libdrm dependencies so I could not try it under an ARM
XO.
> So that was my $0.02. Obviously it can be too late to change plans but who
> knows. I have uploaded the source anyway so you can use it if you want.
>
>
What I really don't understand is, if is all that easy why not be involved
and help?
The development of the web activities stuff was done
Hi!
Took some time but finally set up my git account...
2 Journal
This is probably the issue we have been most aware of. I've been
thinking in the per activity datastore direction too and I think it's
probably the best one. Though as you say that involves UI redesign and
we would need to fi
Hi NoiseEHC,
> No, it won't... It already happened when Bryan Berry moved OLPC Nepal's
> lessons from EToys to Flash, then to HTML5 and there were not any more
> contributors. I mean, there are much more JS developers, so if you pay them
> you can get cheaper talent, but there will be not too much
Excuse the top post: FWIW, I have most of a Sugar authentication with
Google Drive working. (For the almost finished Gdrive webservice.)
-walter
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 10 October 2013 00:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>>
>> 1 Inability to do OAuth
>>
>> This has b
On 10 October 2013 00:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> 1 Inability to do OAuth
>
> This has been discussed for Firefox OS too and as far as I know there is
> no good solution for it yet. I won't claim to understand all the security
> implications, tough the basic issue seems to run content from the we
On 9 October 2013 22:51, NoiseEHC wrote:
> Now I will not give you constructive criticism as that would allow
> answering that "I should not tell others what to do" and it would be
> getting old... Instead here is some nonconstructive criticism:
>
I don't know if it's constructive or not, but I'
On 07/10/2013 18:41, David Farning wrote:
Activity Central supports the recent HTML5 + JS work that is going
into sugar .100. It has the potential to take the OLPC vision to any
device which runs a browser while simultaneously *increasing* the
potential activity *developer* *pool* by several orde
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate
> thread).
>
> My understanding is that deployments nowadays are the primary parties
> funding Sugar development. And the deployments or their contractors
> sometimes
On 8 October 2013 01:45, Ruben Rodríguez wrote:
> Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities
> that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need
> cleaning.
Please fix those bits directly upstream! I have not seen any patch related
to this effort yet.
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 19:48 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
> wrote:
>
> > Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities
> > that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need
> > cleaning.
>
> Be nice to know
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:00:06AM +0200, Ruben Rodríguez wrote:
> 2013/10/8 Walter Bender :
> > Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
>
> Sure thing! We just finished with the first leg of the project and the
> resultant image is getting tested now, so soon I'll start sending
> patches.
2013/10/8 Walter Bender :
> Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
Sure thing! We just finished with the first leg of the project and the
resultant image is getting tested now, so soon I'll start sending
patches. There are usually small things, like scripts written in bash
(ubuntu uses d
2013/10/7 Gonzalo Odiard :
> I agree. Have Sugar working on Ubuntu would be great, but would be mainly:
> * Solve dependencies in ubuntu (update/fix packages)
> * Make Sugar work with other dependencies when is not possible.
>
> In the first case, upstream is Ubuntu, in the second case, upstream is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
wrote:
> Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities
> that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need
> cleaning.
Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
thx
>
>
> --
> Rubén Rodríguez
> Activi
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
>
> I would like to understand better what you mean with porting. It should just
> be matter of writing package specs (or really fixing the existing ones...),
> no?
Mainly, but since we work with Ubuntu LTS for the deployment's benefit
we had to backport patches into go
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
>> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
>> trouble to visit a web site.
>>
>> (The review
On 8 October 2013 01:07, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate
> thread).
>
To simplify things I will only answer about the 0.100 release cycle. Things
have changed a lot anyway and it's probably not worth focusing on the past.
> My u
My 2 cents:
Since the switch to github, we've have a much better turn-around on
reviews and we've attacked new reviewers. I think those data speak for
themselves. As Daniel said, we welcome help further shaping the
process.
regards.
-walter
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Manuel Quiñones wrote
On 8 October 2013 00:22, James Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> > Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> > seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> > it.
> >
> > There aren't multiple grou
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
> be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
> generally follow.
>
> (On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
> stabil
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> it.
>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing
> sugar on their own
On 8 October 2013 00:08, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.
>
Exactly.
The sooner people understand that, the sooner we will stop having
discussions about the review process over and over :)
___
Sugar-devel mailing
2013/10/7 James Cameron :
> Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > Daniel wrote:
>> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > > > Samuel Wrote:
>> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
>> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
>> > > >
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron wrote:
> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
> trouble to visit a web site.
>
> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
>
> S
Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > Daniel wrote:
> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > > > Samuel Wrote:
> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
> > > > seems to be developing their own ve
I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
generally follow.
(On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
stability or direction of Fedora. So few people I know use it.)
--
Ja
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, David Farning
wrote:
> As a more incremental approach, Activity Central will continue our
> deployment-centric work by porting Dextrose to Ubuntu.
>From a "deploy to XOs PoV" that sounds like a ton of work. You'll
grind against a lot of little problems.
Fedora is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning wrote:
>
>> Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
>> discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
>> use on hardware not sold by the Association?
>>
>> Pha
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer
> publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be
> developing their own version of Sugar.
>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind
In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer
publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be
developing their own version of Sugar.
>
> Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and
> we have not been reviewing most patches o
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning wrote:
> Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
> discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
> use on hardware not sold by the Association?
>
> Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
> http://wiki.suga
On 7 October 2013 19:24, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>
>
>- Updating the Sugar release in Ubuntu sounds like something everyone
>could benefit from, not just Dextrose users. Is there any reason not to
>base most of this work starting with upstream Sugar & existing Ubuntu
>packages?
>
Disclaimer: These are my personal views, and are not the official views of
OLPC.
- It should be fine to discuss anything Sugar-related on the
sugarlabs.org development lists. Sugar Labs does not use any OLPC
hosting services, and is an independent group as part of the Software
Freedo
As a data point for other decision makers and a follow up to some of
the recent threads on the future of Sugar, I would like to share
Activity Central's Sugar priorities for the next six months.
Activity Central supports the recent HTML5 + JS work that is going
into sugar .100. It has the potentia
37 matches
Mail list logo
