This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate thread).
My understanding is that deployments nowadays are the primary parties funding Sugar development. And the deployments or their contractors sometimes duplicate work, run into debates upstreaming things, and/or may choose to keep some things semi-private to differentiate their products. So apart from major functionality like HTML5 activities, a lot of peripheral development is happening downstream-first. And when we do try to do major cross-group development like the GTK3 port, this has lead to finger-pointing behind the scenes where it is claimed others are not doing what they promised. To the best of my knowledge no single organization currently employs enough developers and/or contractors to keep Sugar development alive. I am not certain what the best approach to take is when this is the case. On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" > > seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into > > it. > > > > There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing > > sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done > > these days is going upstream. > > Good. I only know of four Sugars. Sugar upstream, Dextrose, what is > in OLPC OS, and what is in the Australian builds. There might be > more, but I'm not aware of them. I also don't know the difference > between each. > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
