On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we need to decouple the release cycles between activities and > Sugar to whatever degree possible. Activities should be able to change > at whatever pace is dictated by the activity developers. Since > activities depend upon Sugar, the Sugar schedule needs to be more > predictable. The only time it seems there would be a conflict is when > an incompatible change in a Sugar module is made, which, with the > emerging process, is hopefully rare and well known in advance. > > Note that the above says nothing about what constitutes a "core" > activity. But we do want to make sure we are not leaving activity > developers in the dust as we make changes. Sugar without activities is > not very interesting.
I agree that limiting the number of components released as a whole brings important benefits. I think that the idea of releasing some activities as part of Sugar is because they provide "services" that are considered a basic part of the user experience inside Sugar. I think this is the reason why GNOME releases applications along with "desktop components"? Regards, Tomeu _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
