On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 18:52, Ed McNierney <e...@laptop.org> wrote: > Tomeu - > > I think everyone should understand that things have changed quite a bit since > January of 2009, and interpreting year-old emails may be a little misleading. > > I think Chris is both right and wrong here. You need to first remember that > when that email was written, there was no XO-1.5 and no funding or plan to > make it. That was a huge change that happened in April. If you decide that > my statement was meant to apply to the XO-1.0, then I'd argue it's still > correct. If you apply it to the XO-1.5, a project that didn't exist when it > was written, then it's wrong. > > In either case, there's a lot more to that email than just one sentence, and > I'd prefer it if people read the whole message. As pertains to the XO-1.0, > it is still substantially correct. > > As it pertains to the XO-1.5, I think it's still true in the sense it was > intended. Look at the 9.1 project plan mentioned - it was a substantial set > of Sugar and system features being solicited from deployments by a Product > Manager (a job that still no longer exists) looking for feature enhancement > requests to combine with our own ideas to design new major releases. The > "major" aspects of our 10.1 release are the (a) movement towards a more > standard Sugar-on-Fedora platform as anticipated in the referenced email, and > (b) the very substantial port to an almost completely new hardware platform. > The latter really is a "major" job but it was not at all something I was > talking about last February. So given that 10.1 is a discussion about a > hardware device that didn't exist when the email was written, I think it's an > out-of-context question. The statement was clearly never intended to refer > to a machine and project that didn't exist at the time the statement was made. > > However, rather than continuing to parse ancient emails, it's probably a far > more helpful endeavor to answer a current question, and I don't know what > that question is in this context. What is the question that the reference to > that email attempted to answer? Thanks.
I wasn't asking any particular question, I just thought that the reference to that email in the wiki could be easily misinterpreted as-it-was and called your attention just in case you would appreciate it. Regards, Tomeu > - Ed > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Chris Ball wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> What I don't know is if the contents of that message are still >>> valid, e.g. "OLPC will not undertake, on its own, another major >>> release of the software package we currently ship with each XO.". >> >> No, not still valid. We just finished doing exactly that for 10.1. :) >> >> - Chris. >> -- >> Chris Ball <c...@laptop.org> >> One Laptop Per Child > > -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
