[sugar] Release schedule and process
Benjamin M. Schwartz
bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu
Wed May 14 10:30:07 EDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
| Blessing a browser is not going to remove competition.
| In practice, GNOME blesses a browser and despite most of the
| distributor/users are using another one, with no interoperability
This is the key example: Gnome has an official browser (Epiphany) and an
official mail client (Evolution). I don't know anybody who uses either on
their own computers. Yet most still have both installed. This is stupid
In truth, I think we are in agreement.
As I said before, we should maintain two builds: sugar-base and
sugar-demo. sugar-base is essentially a virtual machine for Activities.
It does not come with any activities; it is just the empty shell.
sugar-demo is an example build, containing a complete set of activities to
show what we imagine a typical sugar installation to look like. Both of
these builds should be built whenever there is a change, like joyride.
Most developers will run sugar-demo. Most users will run custom builds
created by their deployments. Deployments will create custom builds by
starting with a release version of the sugar-base build and using a
customization system to add Activities. The resulting custom build may be
similar to sugar-demo, but need not contain all the activities in sugar-demo.
I think our problem is just naming. Which of these things is "Sugar"? We
should name these components separately, so that we know what we're
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Sugar