No, the requirement isn't mandatory; there's alternative requirements, see https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Summer_of_Code/Template#Miscellaneous
Also, we've since greatly simplified "development environment" to include native packaged Sugar, which is not a substitute. On the other hand, candidates need to prove their capability somehow; sugar-build was once a useful substitute for examinations, and if they are going to contribute to Sugar through code development it was a good challenge. However, our previous candidates are having a lot of problems figuring out how to fix sugar-build, and this makes; - the native packaged Sugar environment; and, - the alternative requirements (pull requests or Sugarizer), much more useful than before. In the end, this is up to Walter as responsible contact. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:50:59AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote: > Yeah! > > Now if we could only get the GSOC invitations to stop requiring candidates to > build a 'development environment' and ask them to use Sugar., not a sugar > substitute. > > Tony > > On 04/26/2017 04:44 AM, James Cameron wrote: > > [1]@iamutkarshtiwari, certainly not. Fix sugar-build, not sugar. > sugar-build is only an emulator, and is not used very much at all. sugar > is > used by the most people. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, [2]view it on GitHub, or [3]mute the > thread.* > > References: > > [1] https://github.com/iamutkarshtiwari > [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-build/issues/49#issuecomment-297159303 > [3] > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAULkt75KJJrcz9o3og71gcYeOqzV92Iks5rzltEgaJpZM4MmBhE > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
