First Draft Development Process Proposal

Kim Quirk kim at
Tue Jul 1 22:41:09 EDT 2008

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Greg Smith <gregsmitholpc at> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Thanks for all the comments on the Development Process.
> A few gentle suggestions on managing the input.
> A - My intention is that this page
> ( will be the final page.
> So please put comments and discussion in the talk section. Feel free to
> make signed edits to the page if there is consensus. Any typo fixing or
> additional links and references are also welcome (e.g. does someone have
> a link and explanation of the OLPC-3 build which they can add to the
> builds section?). I want to manage comments on the Talk page and on this
> list if possible.

KQ - feel free to move my comments to the talk page. (If I haven't already
gotten to it)

> B - The best way to change a section is to offer alternative text and
> get consensus for it. Write exactly what you think the text should say,
> post it here and/or on the talk page. Once there are enough +1s we can
> call it final. A couple of people at 1CC need to sign off eventually but
> if "the community" agrees that's pretty certain to be the final word.
> C - The very best way have your input adopted is to write a section. No
> takers on the open items yet and there are some major areas ...
> I should have explained my plan for collecting comment before, sorry. I
> have no complaints about any of the input so far, keep it coming.
> Here are my responses to a few of the issues raised:
> 1 - Translations input
> GS - I agree we need a better definition of that. I added it to the to
> do list.
> 2 - Synching with Fedora schedule
> GS - No opinion right now. Is there consensus? How long do we need after
> a fedora release comes out before our release is ready?

> 3 - "Core OS" vs "Core + Activities"
> GS - My intention was that this doc is for Core OS. I added a to do list
> item for activities and removed on offending comment. We need a
> definition of what constitutes the "Core OS". I prefer a URL with all
> relevant SW modules, but whatever developers need is OK. Do we have
> consensus that this doc is for Core OS only?

KQ - I think a 'release' consists of everything needed to put it behind us:
core OS, signed core OS with all the parts needed for all the upgrade
capabilities (, .crc, .img, .md5, .usb?,...); images+activities for
all customizations (G1G1, Peru, possibly AL); documentation

> GS - That said, I think we should keep with current naming convention on
> Releases used in the field which include activities. The fewer times you
> change the naming convention the better. Also, I think we should
> document the naming convention down to the OS + Activities level even if
> we don't have a process for including activities yet.
> 4 - Support time frame.
> GS - I agree that release should be supported until the second
> subsequent release is out (ala Fedora). Do we have consensus on that?

KQ +1

> 5 - Code names and community roadmap.
> GS - I agree with the code name idea and the community roadmap idea.
> Just type of the text you want on the page including where you want it
> to go. Post it to the talk section and/or send it to this list, get
> consensus and its in as far as I'm concerned.
> 6 - Types of builds, meaning of "freezes", definition of what requires a
> minor release.
> GS - I agree that those could all be improved. Just type of the text you
> want on the page including where you want it to go. Post it to the talk
> section and/or send it to this list, get consensus.
> Thanks for the review and suggestions.
> I didn't see anyone commenting on whether this is useful or not.
> Are there any open source developers reading this who are on the fence
> about working with OLPC? Does this help explain how we work and does it
> help motivate you to chip in?
> Is it useful for the rest of you already working on the project?
> FYI I have a pre-planned vacation I need to take starting tomorrow. I
> will be back online Thursday July 10. I will collect all comments and
> edits then and make another major revision.
> Thanks,
> Greg S
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list