Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] The sugar stack

2009-11-27 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:55:20AM -0600, David Farning wrote:
 It seems time to think about the next _big_ technical issue for
 growing Sugar Labs.  Clearly articulating the Sugar Stack.  For the
 last year or so, we have been circling the issue with talk of stable
 APIs, Glucose, Fructose, and expected dependencies.
 
 Last year, we created the release cycle.  At first, _everyone_
 disagreed with the idea; Release cycles are perfect for _no_one_.
 Defining the Sugar Stack is going to be nearly as painful, because the
 'stack definition' is not going to be perfect for anyone.

yeah, but using 0install dependencies[1] should make stack definition
issue not so hard(we can include to stack only very common dependencies)

 Some reasons for defining a stack:
 1. Statement of quality.  One of the most frequently cited reasons for
 the glucose, fructose, honey classification is quality.
 - Glucose is the core stuff.
 - Fructose is the supported stuff.
 - Honey is the rest.
 This is a very valid method of defining layers of the project; Fedora
 had core and extras, Ubuntu has main and universe, Eclipse has various
 levels of official-ness, (none of which I can remember) The kernel
 simply has 'in-tree' and 'out-of-tree'.
 
 2. Statement of synchronisation.  In some instances it is desirable
 for various parts of a project to be tested and release together.
 - Sugar core is developed according to a release cycle.
 - Fructose tends to align with the release cycle.
 - Honey happens 'when it happens.'
 This is also very valid; Distro all have synchronised releases.  The
 desktop managers all ship a core at distinct release points.  Ecplise
 has its release train.
 
 3. Statement of what is provided.  Down streams _need_ to know what
 applications they can depend on.
 - Core APIs
 - Optional things to meet dependencies.
 Most languages provide for core functionality which can be extended
 with modules.  Apache also is organized as http server and installable
 modules.
 
 Many of the discussion about this have stalled because of confusion
 over what aspect the stack we are trying to define.
 
  As a starting point, I would suggest:
 1. That we get rid of the glucose - fructose categorisation.  It is
 overloaded and confusing

yup, I like scheme when new activity developer well understands(from
beginning) that there is core and his new activity(w/o core, since
fructose comes from sucrose release) which uses core functionality.

 2. That Quality and synchronisation of activities becomes an
 Activities Team issue.

and ASLO could be useful on that way(featured activities, editors
collections etc) and this process is pretty transparent(e.g. we have
public aslo@ ml to discuss editros questions) and well visible(all
editors changes are accessible right after changes) on ASLO.

So, in comparing with fructose scheme(which e.g. involves all distro
packagers, since they should package fructose) in case of ASLO we
have more flexible method.

 This shifts the discussion back to the hard problem of how to think
 terms of 'Sugar-Space' and 'Activities-Space'.
 
 Long term projects success depends on external organisation knowing
 what they can depend on to be part of Sugar.
 
 Before starting a holy war  The process of articulating the Sugar
 stack, much the the release cycle, is an evolutionary process.  There
 is no way the anyone could sit down and declare, 'This is what Sugar
 consists of... and will consist of in the future.'
 
 Instead, the stack is a snapshot of agreed upon APIs, libraries, and
 applications on which downstream activities developers can depend.  I
 suggest that:
 1. The development team and activities team work together to start
 defining the boundary between core and activities.

well, from tech POV, its pretty clear - there are core packages and
activities that use core API/services/resources

 2. All changes to the core and activities boundary should go through
 the new features (or similar) process.
 
 After a few iterations, this process will become as second nature as
 the release process.
 
 david
 ___
 Sugar-devel mailing list
 sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
 http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
 

[1] 
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Zero_Install_integration#Download_dependencies_for_sugar_activity

-- 
Aleksey
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep


Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] The sugar stack

2009-11-27 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 05:56:42PM +, Aleksey Lim wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:55:20AM -0600, David Farning wrote:
  Many of the discussion about this have stalled because of confusion
  over what aspect the stack we are trying to define.
  
   As a starting point, I would suggest:
  1. That we get rid of the glucose - fructose categorisation.  It is
  overloaded and confusing
 
 yup, I like scheme when new activity developer well understands(from
 beginning) that there is core and his new activity(w/o core, since
 fructose comes from sucrose release) which uses core functionality.
 
  2. That Quality and synchronisation of activities becomes an
  Activities Team issue.
 
 and ASLO could be useful on that way(featured activities, editors
 collections etc) and this process is pretty transparent(e.g. we have
 public aslo@ ml to discuss editros questions) and well visible(all
 editors changes are accessible right after changes) on ASLO.
 
 So, in comparing with fructose scheme(which e.g. involves all distro
 packagers, since they should package fructose) in case of ASLO we
 have more flexible method.

I guess one of major reasons to keep fructose is localization issue
(its much easier for translators to have tough set of activities
to localize them at first).

In my mind its just remains from OLPC scheme(when where is only
one developer/deployer). But now, another deployment could have another
priority in choosing activities.

So translate.sl.o could have several activity sets for various
deployers/deployments such we have now only for OLPC.

And in addition to such sets, using Featured activities which
will be set of featured activities on ASLO(last activity versions).

-- 
Aleksey
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep


Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] The sugar stack

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 05:56:42PM +, Aleksey Lim wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:55:20AM -0600, David Farning wrote:
  Many of the discussion about this have stalled because of confusion
  over what aspect the stack we are trying to define.
 
   As a starting point, I would suggest:
  1. That we get rid of the glucose - fructose categorisation.  It is
  overloaded and confusing

 yup, I like scheme when new activity developer well understands(from
 beginning) that there is core and his new activity(w/o core, since
 fructose comes from sucrose release) which uses core functionality.

  2. That Quality and synchronisation of activities becomes an
  Activities Team issue.

 and ASLO could be useful on that way(featured activities, editors
 collections etc) and this process is pretty transparent(e.g. we have
 public aslo@ ml to discuss editros questions) and well visible(all
 editors changes are accessible right after changes) on ASLO.

 So, in comparing with fructose scheme(which e.g. involves all distro
 packagers, since they should package fructose) in case of ASLO we
 have more flexible method.

 I guess one of major reasons to keep fructose is localization issue
 (its much easier for translators to have tough set of activities
 to localize them at first).

 In my mind its just remains from OLPC scheme(when where is only
 one developer/deployer). But now, another deployment could have another
 priority in choosing activities.

 So translate.sl.o could have several activity sets for various
 deployers/deployments such we have now only for OLPC.

 And in addition to such sets, using Featured activities which
 will be set of featured activities on ASLO(last activity versions).

It would be interesting to auto-generate groups in Pootle based on the
groups people define in ASLO.

-walter

 --
 Aleksey
 ___
 Sugar-devel mailing list
 sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
 http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel




-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep