thanks for that Gonzalo the key version number criteria for marketing is not that it's a formal system, it's to simplify a story for people who have little or more likely no idea what Sugar is. The story we are developing is: we are meeting the challenge of handheld devices while supporting our 3 million Learners. This story will be well-served by a v2 or v3 number, but I'm afraid linking the year will box us into a timeframe when what we need (marketing standpoint again) is a version number on a flexible timetable according to circumstances.
F/LOSS projects are not a marketing reference for me, with very few exceptions they are not good at it at all. My references are the iPod, Nespresso, Amazon, Coca-Cola, etc. Sean On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: > Sean, > Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes. > We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0 > was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not > comfortable, > and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year. > > What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2) > as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users > to be updated? > > Gonzalo > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > cc'ing marketing for... a marketing issue > > > > Nope, the GTK3 change just passed under the radar. As stated previously I > > lobbied for a v1 six years ago which is why we are ready for a v2. Or > even a > > v3. > > > > For building a PR story I can work with v2 or v3, just not v1. > > > > The issue with 2.2, 2.4 is that from a marketing perspective we get boxed > > into a major number step timeframe irrespective of marketing needs. A > major > > number change should ideally happen when it's ready, or when we need to > > communicate a major shift. I still think associating the existing > numbering > > behind a major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will communicate > the > > major number, probably with a name. And not an unmarketable obscure name, > > either. > > > > Sean > > Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to > marketing > >> because there wasn't major user visible changes? > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in development > and > >>> the current numbering makes a lot of sense. > >>> However, looking from outside 0.102 should be Sugar 3.x where 1.x is > the > >>> original, 2.x is the Gtk3/introspection move and now the html5/jc > >>> (online/ultrabook/tablet) version. > >>> If you actually consider 0.100 as 3.0 then it can go 3.2, 3.4 etc to > keep > >>> up with current numbering. > >>> Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sugar-devel mailing list > >>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Narvaez > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sugar-devel mailing list > >> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marketing mailing list > > Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
