But Sean proposal seems to address that issue. The major number make sense for marketing, the minor for developers.
On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 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 others. > Would be good try to found a numbers with a sense we can transmit. > For us, is another tag in git.... > > Gonzalo > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Yup > > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > > Maybe "Sugar Web" instead of "Sugar Online"? > We have web activities and Web Services in this release .... > > Gonzalo > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: > > This is just a gut reaction but I feel we should think more in the "Sugar > online" direction than in the "Sugar on tablet" one, at least as a first > step. I'd love Sugar on tablet as anyone else but I feel it's somewhat > unrealistic because it involves skills, moneys and partnerships we don't > currently have. > > I also think we should not completely discard Sugar on netbooks (maybe > ultrabooks feels less anachronistic? :P). The hybrids that are hitting the > market lately might not be mature, cheap or extremely popular, but it's an > interesting direction to explore ... Keyboards are not completely dead > yet IMO! > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: > > If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a press > release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd the > list. > > As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years after > entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e. > teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of > production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing at a > Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar Reaches > V1". > > We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6 was > renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an > easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a first > non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the > underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant. > > We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big deal. > In my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name i.e. > "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs marketing > work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven years > of production. > > The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being > understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be > associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc., which > would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps become > irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development > mode. > > I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six > years ago [1]... > > (!) > > So I think we are ready for v2. > > Sean. > > [1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: > > We already have this discussion for Sugar 0.100, > why not do it again? :) > > With more than 7 years of development and more than 2 million of users, > probably we should accept a 1.0 version is deserved. > > With 6 months more, probably the web api will be more established, > and we are not doing incompatible changes to the python api. > > Anybody have a Really Good Motive(r) to not do it? > > Gonzalo > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > 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
