607
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + +
→Milestones/Versions
===Milestones/Versions===
===Milestones/Versions===
Would it make sense to have a Sugar '''milestone''' (e.g., Sugar 0.82) that is distinct from the OLPC milestones? Or would it make more sense to have a Sugar '''version''' that maps to an OLPC milestone?
Would it make sense to have a Sugar '''milestone''' (e.g., Sugar 0.82) that is distinct from the OLPC milestones? Or would it make more sense to have a Sugar '''version''' that maps to an OLPC milestone?
The way this is normally handled by linux projects is to have two separate tracking system, one for the distribution (http://bugzilla.redhat.com) and one for the project itself (http://bugzilla.gnome.org). Distribution maintainers usually encourage to file bug upstream unless they are distribution specific, and they tend to move them upstream when they are misfiled. This is not very satisfactory because it involves a lot of manual work. In our case it might get a lot worst because we are hopefully going to have *lots* of users not trained to the open source development processes, which will not be able to make a distinction between distribution and upstream project. I'm not sure what's the best solution here. I think clarifying which kind of support and to whom sugarlabs is going to provide will help evaluating our options here. I'm planning to start a thread about, but I'll give you some time to deal with more urgent issues before :) --marco
===Keywords/Components===
===Keywords/Components===