Michael, It seems like "recording the compatibility matrix between builds and activities" alone is a 2-3 person job in the very near future. Today it is probably a full time QA person -- and we are short about 3 QA people right now.
It would be great to get some feedback as to how this can be achieved by the developer of the activity -- or what kind of automated tools can be developed to make it easy to test compatibilty; and how can we encourage people to do this testing. We have to assume that OLPC will NEVER have enough people to do backward compatibility testing for activities, other than a few very basic activities. Kim On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Michael Stone wrote: > | * to the extent that we are able, we should record the compatibility > | matrix between builds and activities > > Once upon a time, there was going to be a build called "First Release to > Service", and its number was to be 1. > ~From http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles: > "Each activity.info file must have a "host_version" key. The version is a > single positive integer. This specifies the version of the Sugar > environment which the activity is compatible with. (fixme: need to specify > sugar versions somewhere. Obviously we start with 1.)" > > It seems to me that FRS ~= Update.1. It's all designed; it just needs to > be implemented (and that's easy). > > | * what assistance are we obligated to provide to deployments? > If OLPC is not completely daft, it must do everything possible to make the > governments happy, so that they are most likely to recommend OLPC to their > neighbors. > > | * if we discover notable flaws (security, legal, "objectionable > | content") in bundles that a deployment is using, what should we do? > Communication and openness are the hallmarks of OLPC. > > | * in particular, whose responsibility is it to initiate communication > | of this sort? > What, you don't have a distinct relationship manager responsible for > ensuring complete communication with each client? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFH5EPgUJT6e6HFtqQRAgtyAJ9pLkQZZSwjSZjCya67PUqGHqpDpACgmpjv > wpUiyhV4z9aTu1wOc/RbPGk= > =bZuB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
