Activity Library/Editors/Policy: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

<noinclude>[[Category:Policy]]</noinclude>{{draft}}

== Technical policy ==

All technical checks will happen [[Platform_Team/Recipe_Lint|automatically]] while uploading activities.~~(But for now ASLO doesn't check them all.)~~

All technical checks will happen [[Platform_Team/Recipe_Lint|automatically]] while uploading activities.

== Guidelines for accepting an activity ==

Line 40:

** Must be categorised correctly

* Versions of Sugar

** Do we assume the developer has tested on all versions they say it works on?

** Do we assume the developer has tested on all versions they say it works on? --[[User:RafaelOrtiz|RafaelOrtiz]] 20:48, 18 February 2011 (EST) At least that he sets the flag correctly on ASLO.

** Tester approving activity tests on olpc stable builds?

** Who tests on SoaS and what version?

* Must tell user if the activity is using web? collecting user data?

* Must have I18n support (i.e gettext generated .POT with ./setup.py genpot)

--[[User:RafaelOrtiz|RafaelOrtiz]] 20:48, 18 February 2011 (EST) We must focus in testing for diferent versions of sugar, olpc. soas an use different sugar versions, generally newer than Sugar 0.82

----

Sorry, but keeping all these "Must"s, what ASLO is supposed to be? A place to host activities developed by well skilled coders, QAed by well skilled engineers, released by well skilled project managers? Is it about Sugar or something else? If I got Sugar purpose right, Sugar is about learning via doing, it is mostly impossible to do something well formed right after starting. ASLO should respect experimenters and their decision about quality (ready to share) of the code. At the same time, there are bunch of side ways how to mark activities that satisfy all these "Must"s - editors pick up and special collections. [[User:Alsroot|alsroot]] 07:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Non-technical policy ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{draft}}
+<noinclude>[[Category:Policy]]</noinclude>{{draft}}
 == Technical policy ==
-All technical checks will happen [[Platform_Team/Recipe_Lint|automatically]] while uploading activities.(But for now ASLO doesn't check them all.)
+All technical checks will happen [[Platform_Team/Recipe_Lint|automatically]] while uploading activities.
 == Guidelines for accepting an activity ==
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 ** Must be categorised correctly
 * Versions of Sugar
-** Do we assume the developer has tested on all versions they say it works on?
+** Do we assume the developer has tested on all versions they say it works on? --[[User:RafaelOrtiz|RafaelOrtiz]] 20:48, 18 February 2011 (EST) At least that he sets the flag correctly on ASLO.
 ** Tester approving activity tests on olpc stable builds?
 ** Who tests on SoaS and what version?
 * Must tell user if the activity is using web? collecting user data?
+* Must have I18n support (i.e gettext generated .POT with ./setup.py genpot)
+--[[User:RafaelOrtiz|RafaelOrtiz]] 20:48, 18 February 2011 (EST) We must focus in testing for diferent versions of sugar, olpc. soas an use different sugar versions, generally newer than Sugar 0.82
+----
+Sorry, but keeping all these "Must"s, what ASLO is supposed to be? A place to host activities developed by well skilled coders, QAed by well skilled engineers, released by well skilled project managers? Is it about Sugar or something else? If I got Sugar purpose right, Sugar is about learning via doing, it is mostly impossible to do something well formed right after starting. ASLO should respect experimenters and their decision about quality (ready to share) of the code. At the same time, there are bunch of side ways how to mark activities that satisfy all these "Must"s - editors pick up and special collections. [[User:Alsroot|alsroot]] 07:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
 == Non-technical policy ==