With our history, and looking at how disconnected the deployments can be of our development track, I am really tempted of looking for a number schema related to the year...
Gonzalo On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS > X for example (though Apple went with numbers for iOS, I sort of wonder the > reason of the difference). Anyway I don't really have a strong opinion > about number vs name for marketing version, I will be happy with whatever > marketing team think it's best :) > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > >> As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression >> (at least the name is "The Third" and so :) >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I >>> like the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and >>> marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :) >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal >>> > point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102. >>> > >>> > -walter >>> >>> I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it! >>> >>> I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is >>> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely >>> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a >>> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large >>> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand. >>> >>> Here are some interesting perspectives: >>> >>> http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names >>> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/ >>> http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/ >>> >>> and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning >>> >>> cheers, >>> Sameer >>> >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with >>> any >>> >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released >>> a 1.0 >>> >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 >>> really >>> >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest... >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a >>> press >>> >>> release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd >>> the >>> >>> list. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years >>> after >>> >>> entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e. >>> >>> teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years >>> of >>> >>> production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor >>> laughing at a >>> >>> Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar >>> Reaches >>> >>> V1". >>> >>> >>> >>> We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick >>> v6 was >>> >>> renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to >>> an >>> >>> easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a >>> first >>> >>> non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the >>> >>> underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big >>> deal. >>> >>> In my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name >>> i.e. >>> >>> "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs >>> marketing >>> >>> work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after >>> seven years >>> >>> of production. >>> >>> >>> >>> The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of >>> being >>> >>> understandable to developers and the deployments community and could >>> be >>> >>> associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 >>> etc., which >>> >>> would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps >>> become >>> >>> irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous >>> development >>> >>> mode. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 >>> six >>> >>> years ago [1]... >>> >>> >>> >>> (!) >>> >>> >>> >>> So I think we are ready for v2. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sean. >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On >>> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing >>> >>> >> > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
