An OLPC Development Model
Marco Pesenti Gritti
mpgritti at gmail.com
Wed May 7 13:36:13 EDT 2008
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
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).
More information about the Devel