An OLPC Development Model

[Marco Pesenti Gritti]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  For example, we may have a "sugar" build with the latest
>  >  sugar UI bits, a "security" build which implements Bitfrost more
>  >  fully, a "printers" build which works on printer support,
>
>  That makes sense if (when) there is enough people - the overhead of
>  maintaining and testing additional builds is important.

I think we should very careful about the complexity and the
maintenance costs  brought by additional builds. Even just the
joyride/stable distinction brought more confusion than benefits so far
ihmo.

I'm not opposed to make image builds more distributed on the long run.
I just think we have worst problem to fight with at the moment.

>
>  > an "activities" build which tries to collect all the best activities from
>  >  the community, etc.
>
>  I want to have that "activities" build too 8-)

I'm not really convinced it should be a separate build. Just ship a
set of core activities and make it really easy to install new ones (we
have already everything in place to do so).

Marco