2008/4/22 Kim Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Similarly,
> Journal is much more than just an activity... so that will have to be part
> of systematic testing.
Journal is planned to become part of the Sugar core, perhaps in time
for August release.
Marco
__
FYI: The tracking of activities, and marking which ones were in the
best state to ship, was part of the build debate earlier this year.
The proposal was for OLPC F. to mark some activities as mature enough
to consider for deployment and to push them to have a consistent
branch name for each time b
Kim Quirk wrote:
> Collaboration is really important to any release... so we need to include
> some activities that collaborate as part of formal testing. Similarly,
> Journal is much more than just an activity... so that will have to be part
> of systematic testing.
>
> Browse has to work as it
2008/4/21 Kim Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I guess I'd like to err on the side that people believe by default that 'no
> activities are supported'. That way anything that works is a plus!
>
> In reality there are going to be some important things that we want to
> ensure are really working with eve
I guess I'd like to err on the side that people believe by default that 'no
activities are supported'. That way anything that works is a plus!
In reality there are going to be some important things that we want to
ensure are really working with every major build... so we will need to do
some testi
2008/4/20 Kim Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bernie,
> I'd like to make two points regarding your notes:
>
> 1 - OLPC cannot be responsible for activities. So it is really much better
> that the activities are now separate from the base code to help get this
> point across to the country. As a 'sales
Just so I can get it into the wiki correctly, the primary release
steps you mention:
1. Check-in: Making sure all the relevant changes are checked into
GIT on proper branches, and that the result is only completed
functionality that seems to work together.
2. Testing: Building it, getting dif
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 17:54 -0400, Kim Quirk wrote:
> Bernie,
> I'd like to make two points regarding your notes:
>
> 1 - OLPC cannot be responsible for activities. So it is really much
> better that the activities are now separate from the base code to help
> get this point across to the country.
Bernie,
I'd like to make two points regarding your notes:
1 - OLPC cannot be responsible for activities. So it is really much better
that the activities are now separate from the base code to help get this
point across to the country. As a 'sales' type person, you need to convey
that activities ar
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 18:54 +0530, Sayamindu Dasgupta wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense to make seperate releases _only_ for
> translations.
Why does rolling a release seem to be such a big thing?
Generating a new OS image takes 10 minutes of machine time
and this is as simple as it can get.
Hi all,
I don't think it makes sense to make seperate releases _only_ for
translations. I am currently working on a language-pack builder for
deployers and testers, which would generate language packs for
different releases (eg: Update-1, or Joyride), etc. This should
separate the release process
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 17:25 -0300, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Can you be more precise about the dates involved and the precise
> pieces which need better Italian support? Activity translation
> improvements don't need to wait for Update.2. If it's just
> translation changes to the base system, we
12 matches
Mail list logo
