On 22 October 2013 21:41, NoiseEHC noise...@gmail.com 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
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
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 in
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
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?
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
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
On 9 October 2013 22:51, NoiseEHC noise...@gmail.com 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
On 10 October 2013 00:22, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com 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
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 dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2013 00:22, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
1
On 8 October 2013 01:45, Ruben Rodríguez ru...@activitycentral.com 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
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Samuel Greenfeld greenf...@laptop.org 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
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
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
On 7 October 2013 19:24, Samuel Greenfeld greenf...@laptop.org 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
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning dfarn...@activitycentral.com 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
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 on
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 of
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning dfarn...@activitycentral.comwrote:
Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
use on
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, David Farning
dfarn...@activitycentral.com 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
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.)
--
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 version of Sugar.
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org 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
2013/10/7 James Cameron qu...@laptop.org:
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
On 8 October 2013 00:08, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org 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 :)
___
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. As
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org 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
On 8 October 2013 00:22, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org 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
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
On 8 October 2013 01:07, Samuel Greenfeld greenf...@laptop.org 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
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org 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
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
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
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
ru...@activitycentral.com 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
2013/10/7 Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org:
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
2013/10/8 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
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
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:00:06AM +0200, Ruben Rodríguez wrote:
2013/10/8 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
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
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 19:48 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
ru...@activitycentral.com 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.
37 matches
Mail list logo
