Difference between revisions of "Activity Library/Editors/Policy"
< Activity Library | Editors
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Non-technical policy == | == Non-technical policy == | ||
− | * | + | Some points that could be considered during activity review(maybe some of activities should be removed at all). |
+ | |||
+ | * inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content | ||
+ | * non-FOSS licence which restrict essential(for education, some people thinks, essential for other cases too:) behaviour, free to run|study|redistribute|change | ||
+ | * .. | ||
== Resources == | == Resources == |
Revision as of 19:37, 29 November 2009
![]() |
NOTICE: This page is a draft in active flux... Please contribute to these contents and discuss issues on the discussion page. |
ASLO auto checking
- unique bundle_id activity.info field value
- unique name activity.info field value
- unique icon activity.info image file
- license activity.info field value has short names that conform fedora good licences lists: software, documentation and content.
Additional technical policy for editors
- Check that activity runs on declared Sugar Platforms.
Major sugar environments are Development Team/Packaging - If activity has binary blobs, check it on:
- x86 architecture
- x86_64 architecture (looks like we have x86_64 only for SP-0.84+)
- If activity entirely(not just minor glitches like screen resolution) depends on hardware/software properties of particular environment(XO for example), this activity can not be pushed to the public and should be left in Experimental stage. In that case editors could collect these activities in collections e.g. "Experimental XO activities" until they are fixed to run in common environment which satisfy Sugar Platform specification.
- For all bugs that were found during review
- create tickets on http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ for component ActivityTeam
- mention all found tickets in review comments(in place editable response string is in progress)
Non-technical policy
Some points that could be considered during activity review(maybe some of activities should be removed at all).
- inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content
- non-FOSS licence which restrict essential(for education, some people thinks, essential for other cases too:) behaviour, free to run|study|redistribute|change
- ..
Resources
- Original AMO policy