On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:30:30AM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: >* At *very* high level the patch sets looks sane. I would be >comfortable with them going in if Scott reviews Martin set, and Martin >reviews Scott set.
Sounds good. Hopefully there are a few other sugar volunteers who could chip in to help look for regressions? >* The patches are large and I don't think it's impossible that they >would cause regressions. Our release manager should be aware of it and >keep loving us if it happens. I'm the one who'se suggesting it, so I'd take the blame. >* I would help by getting packages in the builds and doing a bit of testing. This can happen immediately, yes? >> P.P.S. - Eben mentioned to me that he was concerned that people might >> falsely interpret some of the new 8.2.0 Sugar APIs as stable when they >> are, in fact, almost certain to change in the next major release. I >> would find it commendable if some Sugar developer took this last >> opportunity to add some bold comments to the relevant APIs warning >> developers who examine them about this probable future breakage. > >Eben, what APIs are you thinking about? In general the whole Sugar API >will need to be reviewed. I have yet to figure out when, how and what >kind of backward compatibility we offer. It's something I'll be >working on in the next few weeks. Eben specifically mentioned the APIs used by Frame devices, layouts, and Control Panel entries. Michael _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
