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.
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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
