A few months ago I finished off getting the OLPC mesh working again in
Networkmanager and Tomeu finished off the work on the Sugar side. It's
present in master and presumably 0.88.
However, it hasn't been backported to 0.84 (I thought it had, but was
mistaken). Anyone looking for a very valuable (
Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
Backporting so much invasive change to 0.84.x may make it more risky to
use than 0.88.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http
On 19 May 2010 20:45, James Cameron wrote:
> Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
You're talking about a huge amount of work here, with only a small
amount of community resources working directly on XO1. And we've
already seen a handful of issues on the list which will generate
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
That's a whole another kettle of fish. The test surface of a whole
Sugar release is huge...
Let's work towards a better 0.84...
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -
Hi,
> On 19 May 2010 20:45, James Cameron wrote:
>> Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
> You're talking about a huge amount of work here, with only a
> small amount of community resources working directly on XO1. And
> we've already seen a handful of issues on
El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 20:52 -0400, Chris Ball escribió:
> Hi,
>
>> On 19 May 2010 20:45, James Cameron wrote:
>>> Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
>
>> You're talking about a huge amount of work here, with only a
>> small amount of community resources wo
El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 21:09 -0300, Daniel Drake escribió:
> On 19 May 2010 20:45, James Cameron wrote:
> > Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
>
> You're talking about a huge amount of work here, with only a small
> amount of community resources working directly on XO1. And
Hi All,
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 21:09 -0300, Daniel Drake escribió:
>> On 19 May 2010 20:45, James Cameron wrote:
>> > Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
>>
>> You're talking about a huge amount of work here, with o
El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 20:26 -0400, Martin Langhoff escribió:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> > Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
>
> That's a whole another kettle of fish. The test surface of a whole
> Sugar release is huge...
Would you reconsid
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 09:22:52PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> I'd expect people to change their mind on the feasibility of a quick
> transition to Sugar 0.88 after they see my new build.
Yes, that's quite possible. My opinion was distorted by not having
access to a build on XO hardware. On
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 20:26 -0400, Martin Langhoff escribió:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM, James Cameron wrote:
>> > Why not shift the XO-1 users and deployments onto 0.88?
>>
>> That's a whole another kettle of fish. The test s
El Thu, 20-05-2010 a las 00:00 -0400, Martin Langhoff escribió:
> My main concern is test coverage. If we had more formalised testing
> (of the style of http://wiki.laptop.org/go/TestPlan_8.2.0 ) and the
> manpower to do it, then we'd know more.
>
> (I am working on getting some QA organised.)
>
El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 21:40 -0400, Bernie Innocenti escribió:
> I'll probably change your mind this week-end when I'll show you how the
> 0.88 build is coming along :-)
Sorry to respond to myself. I realized that I may have sounded like an
overconfident, pretentious jerk. (thus betraying my act
On 05/19/2010 04:18 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> A few months ago I finished off getting the OLPC mesh working again in
> Networkmanager and Tomeu finished off the work on the Sugar side. It's
> present in master and presumably 0.88.
>
> However, it hasn't been backported to 0.84 (I thought it had, bu
On 20 May 2010 02:53, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Wed, 19-05-2010 a las 21:40 -0400, Bernie Innocenti escribió:
>> I'll probably change your mind this week-end when I'll show you how the
>> 0.88 build is coming along :-)
>
> Sorry to respond to myself. I realized that I may have sounded like an
>
El Thu, 20-05-2010 a las 12:40 -0300, Daniel Drake escribió:
> However, backporting mesh support to Sugar-0.84 is still of huge value
> and is not much work, and is something that can be done today.
I agree with you, and I would have volunteered to do this work if it had
happened a little earlier
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:42:08PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> BTW, yesterday I had the impression to see *6* mesh icons in the
> neighbor view while testing Sugar 0.88. Does it ring any bells?
I saw that with a patch I tested in the past few months ... I don't
recall which one, but you got a
On 05/21/2010 02:46 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:42:08PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> BTW, yesterday I had the impression to see *6* mesh icons in the
>> neighbor view while testing Sugar 0.88. Does it ring any bells?
>
> I saw that with a patch I tested in the past fe
On 05/20/2010 08:32 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 04:18 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> A few months ago I finished off getting the OLPC mesh working again in
>> Networkmanager and Tomeu finished off the work on the Sugar side. It's
>> present in master and presumably 0.88.
>>
>> However,
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 08:32 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> On 05/19/2010 04:18 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>>> A few months ago I finished off getting the OLPC mesh working again in
>>> Networkmanager and Tomeu finished off the work on the Sugar side.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> I have been thinking about how the "olpc mesh network" and the "default
> adhoc network" can coexist.
>
> From a user point of view, I think the features can be exclusive.
Yes. I will take "user" as "deployment team"(1) and say: I think
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 20:03, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> I have been thinking about how the "olpc mesh network" and the "default
>> adhoc network" can coexist.
>>
>> From a user point of view, I think the features can be exclusive.
>
> Y
On 05/24/2010 07:49 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> On 05/20/2010 08:32 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>> On 05/19/2010 04:18 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
A few months ago I finished off getting the OLPC mesh working again in
Networkmanager
On 05/24/2010 08:03 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>> I have been thinking about how the "olpc mesh network" and the "default
>> adhoc network" can coexist.
>>
>> From a user point of view, I think the features can be exclusive.
>
> Yes. I w
24 matches
Mail list logo
