> 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 problem. --Mel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel