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-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
