Sean DALY wrote:
> Sebastian, what's your take? Can we "retire" SoaS-{1,2,3} or fold them
> into the public v1, v2 numbers?
Okay, let me shed some light in here, though I think this has already
been discussed in length.
In the early days when I started working on SoaS, we still had internal
bui
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:17:42AM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> [non-release-naming issue]
Please take this to the mailing list to which it belongs:
sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org.
> Bill Bogstad
Martin
pgp6DdY8ov3zA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Sean DALY wrote:
> As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
> release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
> Fedora 11.
>
> I'm just wondering why "SoaS-2" is in use... non-initiates will assume
> that means SoaS release
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:27:29PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
> As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
> release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
> Fedora 11.
We've agreed the Sugar on a Stick v2 Release Name to be "Blueberry",
and nobody's objected t
As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
Fedora 11.
I'm just wondering why "SoaS-2" is in use... non-initiates will assume
that means SoaS release 2 (Blueberry), don't you think?
thanks
Sean
On Mon, Sep 14
> However internally we had been using Soas-1 and SoaS-2, if I'm not
> mistaken to refer to the underlying Fedora distro (10 and 11
> respectively). It's true that these numbers (or an SoaS-3 if it
> exists) will be confusing compared to the "public" version number.
I believe SoaS-1 (strawberry) w
