> To the extent that sugarlabs is going to operate as a "true upstream", > they need to be cognizant of the fact that OLPC will at times put its > goals/process ahead of "upstream's" goals/process.
I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of "upstream." Sugar developers are cognizant of the needs of OLPC and will go out of their way to make sure that the (by far) largest Sugar deployment is successful. Has this been questioned? > At the moment, I've been assured that upstream does *not* want to fork > sugar, and in fact will go out of its way, making special exceptions > for OLPC patches which conflict with sugar freezes. At present, there is no reason to fork Sugar that I am aware of and as with any project, there is a mechanism for requesting "special exceptions", for example CJB's request regarding OHM and the Sugar Control Panel. It is hard to tell from #7381 what the heated discussion on IRC may have been about. There is certainly not consensus regarding the merits of the "free-form" Home View, but it is being accepted upstream, AFAIK. We do plan some user studies of this View, the results of which may (or may not) be compelling evidence to reopen this decision. -walter _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
