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 <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like > the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and > marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :) > > > On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> >> 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 morning about version numbers. She is >> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely >> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a >> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large >> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand. >> >> Here are some interesting perspectives: >> >> http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names >> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/ >> http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/ >> >> and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning >> >> cheers, >> Sameer >> >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with >> any >> >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a >> 1.0 >> >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really >> >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest... >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Marketing mailing list >> >> market...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> >> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing> > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > > > _______________________________________________ > Marketing mailing list > market...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel