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
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
> message attached...
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender 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 mo
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> I prefer marketing guys talk about marketing,
> but _IMHO_, the numbers what have sense for us internally are not
> the same number what have sense to all other the world.
> For us have sense numbers like 102 or 1.102, but probably not for o
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 wrote:
> I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like
> the idea of a name, it would make the separat
Walter - my issue with a formal system is, it boxes us into numbers on a
timeframe - what we need from a marketing standpoint is to choose a number
that explains the story we will build. Both v2 and v3 are candidates to be
worked on for that story, where we can refer to v1 as Sugar in production
on
Apple went numbers+names for OS X, but chose numbers only for iOS - likely
because the look and feel changes so little across versions.
Sean
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS
> X for example (thoug
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.
Wha
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
In hind sight...
The gtk2 -> gtk3 would have benefited from a major version change. At
the time, I didn't realized it. From a deployment perspective the
shift represented a major change. In addition to the base software,
all of the necessary activities needed to be migrated, QAed, and
verified if
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 wrote:
> Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer versioning
> you bump the major number when you ach
Hi,
I think it's wrong to bump "marketing" version numbers on acount of
technology shifts.
I don't see how i'ts relevant for users that we switched to GTK3, or
even that it is now
possible to build "native" web activities (it was always possible with a
wrapper).
I see as a much more interesti
thanks for that Sebastian
We haven't had a marketing version number until now (excepting SoaS v1 in
2009 which we implied in our communications was "v1"), so from a marketing
perspective the only question is whether to go v2 or v3. I don't have a
strong opinion, but the key is that a marketing ver
12 matches
Mail list logo
