Bill - I completely agree our numbering systems are byzantine and difficult to grasp... there is the Sugar version number, the Fedora version number, the OLPC-OS version number and the XO build number.
Our marketing strategy is to push Sugar on a Stick, so to simplify that we picked the next release coming up at the time, called the current build beta-1, and the release v1 Strawberry (http://www.sugarlabs.org/press). This worked from a PR standpoint; we had worldwide coverage in the tech press (with spotty coverage in education publications though, working on that). 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. Sebastian, what's your take? Can we "retire" SoaS-{1,2,3} or fold them into the public v1, v2 numbers? thanks Sean On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Bill Bogstad <bogs...@pobox.com> wrote: > I've been watching this thread since it began and understand that from > a marketing perspective numbers are 'ugly'. > On the other hand, everyone seems to acknowledge that numbers make it > easier to track things from a development and > deployment support perspective. Obviously, that works best if the > numbers are consistent. Unfortunately the number usage has NOT been > consistent. > > Martin's original web page with proposed logos seems to indicate that > the SoaS Strawberrry release was release 1. "SoaS 1" is also what > shows up on the the 'ugly?' text oriented plymouth start up screen for > Strawberry as well. On the other hand, the CD labels as well as the > ISO filenames for Strawberry and its test releases all referred to > themselves as SoaS2. The current Blueberry? beta ISO calls itself > SoaS3 internally in the same places that Strawberry calls itself > SoaS2. From a deployment support perspective, this is not a good > thing. > > Unfortunately, I can't think of anyway to sink the numbers up again > that won't result in additional possibilities for confusion. Are we > stuck documenting the fact that the official release number and > plymouth displayed versions are always one less then the CD label and > ISO filename? > > Bill Bogstad > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel