Hi again,
I'm thinking that perhaps best would be to create a joyride branch
similar to faster that sugar developers could administer by ourselves.
In that way we wouldn't be blocking on each other so often and Sugar
developers could more easily adapt Sugar to the OLPC hardware.
Sounds good?
Hi,
Hi again, I'm thinking that perhaps best would be to create a
joyride branch similar to faster that sugar developers could
administer by ourselves.
In that way we wouldn't be blocking on each other so often and
Sugar developers could more easily adapt Sugar to the OLPC
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Ed McNierney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This certainly seems like a reasonable solution.
Awesome, how much time would it take to get implemented?
Thanks,
Tomeu
On Nov 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
Hi again, I'm thinking that perhaps best would
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon,
The patch looks fine to me but I'm headed off to UY, so it would
probably be best if someone else did the packaging.
Done, and updated bug #8850 for when you get back.
Daniel
Dear Masters of Joyride,
have built updated sugar rpms and they seem to work fine on last joyrides.
Built locally these rpms. Anybody sees any problem if I build them in
the OLPC-3 branch? Or should be in F9? Or F10 if we intend to switch
soon? What if we decide to do a 8.2.1 release?
Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Masters of Joyride,
have built updated sugar rpms and they seem to work fine on last joyrides.
Marco pointed me out in #sugar that work fine may need some
clarification. In fact, the following
6 matches
Mail list logo
