Mikus, Many of us would like an answer to that question sooner rather than later.... But, in OLPCs defence it is a very difficult issues. The two issues are: 1. Increasing the number of deployed versions greatly increases the cost of support. 2. While recent versions of Sugar have additional functionality, the newness of the code base can make testing and deploying more difficult.
As a data point, think of the specific use cases of Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. As the ecosystem matures, it will be important to think about SL pushing development forward with new releases every 6 months. At the same time, deploying organisations will need to cluster around less frequent stable releases to share the cost of long term support. david On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Mikus Grinbergs<mi...@bga.com> wrote: > I asked once before, but got no answer: > > | When the XO-1.5 on F11 software is eventually deployed (e.g., > | installed by the factory), what level of Sugar will it provide ? > > I just installed 'write-66.xo' on a Parrish XO-1 build on my XO-1. > It failed to launch, because its python code could not find any > module called 'toolbarbox' (to import classes from). > > I see that the recent SoaS3 build (which has a preliminary Sugar > 0.86) provides a 'toolbarbox' module - but Sugar 0.84, which is what > the Parrish XO-1 builds have, does not. What I want to know is > whether it would be worthwhile for me to sooner or later try out > 'write-66', or whether I should plan to do my XO Activity testing > only with 0.84-compatible Activity versions. > > > Please: > > Is XO-1.5 software expected to run Activities marked "for 0.86" ? > > > Thanks, mikus > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel