On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 05:56:42PM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:55:20AM -0600, David Farning wrote: > > Many of the discussion about this have stalled because of confusion > > over what aspect the stack we are trying to define. > > > > As a starting point, I would suggest: > > 1. That we get rid of the glucose - fructose categorisation. It is > > overloaded and confusing > > yup, I like scheme when new activity developer well understands(from > beginning) that there is core and his new activity(w/o "core", since > fructose comes from sucrose release) which uses core functionality. > > > 2. That Quality and synchronisation of activities becomes an > > Activities Team issue. > > and ASLO could be useful on that way(featured activities, editors > collections etc) and this process is pretty transparent(e.g. we have > public aslo@ ml to discuss editros questions) and well visible(all > editors changes are accessible right after changes) on ASLO. > > So, in comparing with fructose scheme(which e.g. involves all distro > packagers, since they should package fructose) in case of ASLO we > have more flexible method.
I guess one of major reasons to keep fructose is localization issue (its much easier for translators to have tough set of activities to localize them at first). In my mind its just remains from OLPC scheme(when where is only one developer/deployer). But now, another deployment could have another priority in choosing activities. So translate.sl.o could have several activity sets for various deployers/deployments such we have now only for OLPC. And in addition to such sets, using "Featured activities" which will be set of featured activities on ASLO(last activity versions). -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
