To the extent that sugarlabs is going to operate as a true upstream,
they need to be cognizant of the fact that OLPC will at times put its
goals/process ahead of upstream's goals/process.
I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of upstream. Sugar
developers are cognizant of the needs of OLPC
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:37 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since a conversation on IRC got unexpectedly heated, let me restate my
personal philosophy for OLPC's relationships with upstream:
I am surprised this got heated, you are right, and this isn't even
controversial. This
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
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)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we're all agreed that even small forks have large long-term
costs, and we'd prefer to avoid them where at all possible -- which we
all agree seems to be the case at present.
Here I disagree - small and medium
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we're all agreed that even small forks have large long-term
costs, and we'd prefer to avoid them where at all possible -- which we
all
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:37 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Since a conversation on IRC got unexpectedly heated, let me restate my
personal philosophy for OLPC's relationships with upstream:
(a) I believe that we should put OLPC's goals *first*, and endeavor to
ensure that we are always
