<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The firmware that we are testing right
now reports its version as 0.0.0.0.p18.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">There has been code recently added to
the driver that checks the version of the firmware and disables the mesh
features on the driver if it doesn't see the right firmware series.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So all that we need at this point is
for Ashish to give us a firmware build that reports the "correct"
version.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">M.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Kimberley Quirk <kim@laptop.org></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: techteam-bounces@lists.laptop.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/25/2008 11:37 AM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">techteam <techteam@laptop.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Walter Bender <walter.bender@gmail.com>,
Sugar List <sugar@laptop.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Techteam] [sugar] Landing patches
about the network devices UI</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Just spoke with Ricardo and he stated that the wireless
firmware we <br>
added to this build was for test purposes only and not the firmware <br>
that we want to ship. It has other test code in it and the simple mesh
<br>
feature was specifically turned off; so we can't use this firmware for
<br>
system testing and we need to revert until we have a better firmware <br>
release with the bug fix on top of what was otherwise working well.<br>
<br>
The issue I pointed out to him (and he will work with Marvell) is that
<br>
we are only a few weeks away from our desired release date and the <br>
blocking bug in the firmware needs to be addressed in the next day or <br>
two. We really need a version of wireless firmware that we can be <br>
using in large scale testing by the end of the week.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your help in driving this, Ricardo!<br>
<br>
Kim<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Aug 25, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Walter Bender wrote:<br>
<br>
> I agree with your assessment. Note that right now (8.2-756), the mesh<br>
> icons don't show up on either the Neighborhood view or the Frame;
that<br>
> is clearly not a satisfactory situation.<br>
><br>
> regards.<br>
><br>
> -walter<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti<br>
> <mpgritti@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
>> Hello,<br>
>><br>
>> we have a couple of patches that should be ready to be reviewed
by<br>
>> tomorrow, which solves several issues with the UI of network devices.<br>
>><br>
>> #6944 UI confuses which AP you are connected to<br>
>> #3993 The color of network icon in Home view becomes white after<br>
>> restarting Sugar.<br>
>> #2866 Network Manager GUI doesn't report success or failure<br>
>> #6995 Add a mesh device to the frame and remove mesh devices from<br>
>> Neighborhood view<br>
>><br>
>> The tickets are a little confusing, so let me summarize what the
<br>
>> patches does:<br>
>><br>
>> 1 Adds "IP address" to the mesh & wireless palettes,
with associated<br>
>> changes to their model classes.<br>
>> 2 Removes the "Disconnect" or "Turn On/off"
entries from the<br>
>> wireless/mesh palettes.<br>
>> 3 Makes both frame icons pulse.<br>
>> 4 Don't show the mesh icons in the mesh view, instead show them
in <br>
>> the frame.<br>
>> 5 Fix some iconsistency in the icon states by cleaning up the
code.<br>
>><br>
>> mtd did quite a bit of testing on them already, but they are pretty<br>
>> invasive and there is some risk of regressions.<br>
>><br>
>> My opinion is:<br>
>><br>
>> 2 is controversial and should be left as is for 8.2<br>
>> 1, 5 are important and we should try to get them in.<br>
>> 4 would be nice to have but I don't consider it essential.<br>
>> 3 should be delayed unless it's small and it's easier to take
it then<br>
>> to refactor patches.<br>
>><br>
>> 1,3,5 has been submitted for review as patch A. 2, 4 will be <br>
>> submitted<br>
>> today as patch B. My suggestion would be:<br>
>><br>
>> * Rip off 3 from patch A if it's worth it and land it for 8.2.0
<br>
>> (before Friday)<br>
>> * Do *not* land patch B for 8.2.0<br>
>><br>
>> mtd has some free time today, so if we can let him know what we
want<br>
>> and don't want to land soon it would be great.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> Marco<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Sugar mailing list<br>
>> Sugar@lists.laptop.org<br>
>> </font></tt><a href=http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar><tt><font size=2>http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Techteam mailing list<br>
Techteam@lists.laptop.org<br>
</font></tt><a href=http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/techteam><tt><font size=2>http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/techteam</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br>