michael wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 08:56:47PM -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > >But should it be up to the Activity developers (or in this case, those > >who first "fitted" the software to Sugar) to keep supporting their > >submission as the Sugar/operating_system platform keeps evolving ? > > Who else would you propose?
the obvious answers are that we need to commit to some level of continuing support for activities, that we support the activities ourselves, or that we need to provide an extensible system so that activities can specify their dependencies (which will either lead to their fulfillment, or to the explicit disabling of the activity if they can't be fullfilled). so far OLPC hasn't specified a minimal level of supplied services, or offered a way for activities to explicitly request services they know to be required. do you really think we can expect activity developers to maintain their code in "reaction mode", having to adapt to any change we make from release to release, only finding out about the breakage after the fact? i can't think of a faster way to make developers give up on our platform as a lost cause. paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
