I also think w should change the major number when we have something different to show (when we achieved the goal)
Gonzalo On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer versioning > you bump the major number when you achieved a certain goal (say have an > Online experience you can be proud of). Here we are bumping when starting > to work towards the goal instead. I don't see that as an issue, just need > to be clear about it. > > So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is the > rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it? > > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: > >> Daniel - if we can work out where SL is going, we can build a PR story. >> If we aren't sure, it's better to communicate other aspects (TA Days, >> Google Code-In, the TripAdvisor grant). >> >> I like v3 as a major version, step versions could be called 3.102, 3.103, >> 3.104 by developers, while marketing would call it 3 and a name. If we are >> lucky and the name ("Online", "Touch", "Hand", "Cloud", or whatever - this >> needs work) catches on, we can keep it through step versions. >> >> It's important to understand that in the complete absence of a >> marketing/promotion budget (with the exception of the newswire 10-pack >> which was voted by the SLOBs), effective PR is our chief resource-effective >> way to build awareness. This means we tell news based on the possibility of >> press coverage, not automatically every time there is a version. >> >> 102 can become v3.102 and we can announce the html/javascript browser >> approach, ideally associated with a method for teachers to try Sugar - SoaS >> with extra teacher-friendly bits, or VMs. If that is too ambitious, the v3 >> marketing push could wait until 3.104. Sugar brand awareness is on the >> nonexistent end of the scale for our ten million teachers, this means we >> can set the schedule. It's harder when there is buzz and momentum, a >> situation we had after SoaS v1 Strawberry. >> >> Sean. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I agree with you about major.minor, with major being the marketing >>> version and minor the developers one. Did I get that right? Does anyone >>> disagree? >>> >>> What I'm not sure to understand is which major number you would like to >>> be used for the next release. To make it easier let's say we are currently >>> v2 as Yioryos suggested. My understanding is that >>> >>> * If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it 3.102, marketing >>> 3 + some name. >>> * if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103, marketing... just >>> won't call it :) >>> >>> Is that correct? >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >>> >> > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > > > _______________________________________________ > 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