[cc += sugar] Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > I like these ideas very much... I'm not sure about the separation of > sugar core and activities though. I tend to think we should have a > unified release process for them (at least on the short time) and > having two different trac would probably make it harder.
The Linux kernel keeps all drivers in the tree because this is the only way you can quickly change internal interfaces without the burden of backwards compatibility. Xorg modularized too much, and now every time they refactor the server all drivers break and some remain broken for 6 months or longer. Sugar might be different: there could be very little shared code between the shell and the activities. Communication is mostly dbus based, and protocols are notoriously much easier to keep stable than APIs. All considered, I think that keeping a core group of activities with the rest of Sugar would be a good idea. This is also what KDE and Gnome do. --- Someone might ask: why does bernie continuously bring up other projects for any project management issue? The answer is that I consider us as a very young project. Looking at mature projects such as the Linux and KDE provides a lot of insight into how things might evolve in the future. This does not mean we should blindly follow what the others did even when we have a strong feeling it would not work. But when the best choice is not obvious, following the steps of someone who was successful before you minimizes the risk of making a bad decision. -- \___/ _| o | Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \|_X_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!" _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
