> 2009/3/8 Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>:
> > No definite agreement has been made, but in preliminary chats, it seems
> > that both organizations agree that anything for XS or specific to XO
> hardware
> > should go in OLPC, and everything else (general Sugar improvements,
> > frameworks, or activities) should go in Sugarlabs.
> We discussed this at XO camp, and people from Sugar Labs were
> considering not supporting activity development and focusing on core
> sugar development.

This is correct.

> Has this changed? In general, do you expect that
> priorities for toolchain and activity development will be the same?

In general, sugar-core and toolchain development is a higher priority than
generative Activity development (Activities that lower the barrier to
Activity development). It's highly unlikely that non-generative Activity
development will be supported.

> I expect that many activity development and student projects
> interested in working with current schools will apply for both OLPC
> and Sugar Labs projects; they are welcome to apply to both, and those
> doing work relevant to Sugar should be encouraged to!  Applying to
> multiple GSOC groups is standard practice; students do not need to
> choose.  We had a couple of students last year who ended up working on
> OLPC related projects for other orgs.

Yup, I remember that. :) We talked with Cjb about shuttling relevant apps
back and forth as needed - what we're doing right now is setting up
guidelines that will hopefully minimize the amount of sorting that's needed,
then waiting for students to come in, then sorting. Double-apping is not a

Devel mailing list

Reply via email to