On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
No, and it's good to hear regardless. >> 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. Yes, things are going well right now, and the current issues are not problematic. I was just trying to preemptively communicate expectations, so that any future minor fork of sugar is not seen as adversarial, but instead a natural solution to allow decoupled development -- in the same way we use small forks to handle such issues in other components (such as telepathy, initscripts, etc). I think we're all agreed that even small forks have large long-term costs, and we'd prefer to avoid them where at all possible -- which we all agree seems to be the case at present. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
