TuxPaint woes

[pgf at laptop.org]

michael wrote:
 > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 08:56:47PM -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
 > >But should it be up to the Activity developers (or in this case, those
 > >who first "fitted" the software to Sugar) to keep supporting their
 > >submission as the Sugar/operating_system platform keeps evolving ?
 > 
 > Who else would you propose?

the obvious answers are that we need to commit to some level of
continuing support for activities, that we support the activities
ourselves, or that we need to provide an extensible system so that
activities can specify their dependencies (which will either lead
to their fulfillment, or to the explicit disabling of the activity if
they can't be fullfilled).

so far OLPC hasn't specified a minimal level of supplied
services, or offered a way for activities to explicitly request
services they know to be required.  do you really think we can
expect activity developers to maintain their code in "reaction
mode", having to adapt to any change we make from release to
release, only finding out about the breakage after the fact?  i
can't think of a faster way to make developers give up on our
platform as a lost cause.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at laptop.org