Hi,
I think it's wrong to bump "marketing" version numbers on acount of
technology shifts.
I don't see how i'ts relevant for users that we switched to GTK3, or
even that it is now
possible to build "native" web activities (it was always possible with a
wrapper).
I see as a much more interesting development, the sudden appearance in
Sugar of
user-customizable bits, which have been developed by kids. The ability
to customize
Sugar has been desired by users from the very beginning, and the
"freestyle" homeview
was not sufficient. Kids would even use ASCII art on the nickname to
personalize their
"desktop", sorry "learning environment".
This is a fun pic:
http://blog.laptop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/paraguay-homescreen1.jpg
So, maybe Sugar 3.100 is really "Your Sugar", or "Freedom Sugar" or
"Personal Sugar".
Extra points to put the Freedom back in the priorities.
Just a little humble opinion,
Regards,
Sebastian
El 08/11/13 07:29, Gonzalo Odiard escribió:
I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)
Gonzalo
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com
<mailto:dwnarv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 be clear about it.
So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is
the rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it?
On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:
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 would call
it 3 and a name. If we are lucky and the name ("Online",
"Touch", "Hand", "Cloud", or whatever - this needs work)
catches on, we can keep it through step versions.
It's important to understand that in the complete absence of a
marketing/promotion budget (with the exception of the newswire
10-pack which was voted by the SLOBs), effective PR is our
chief resource-effective way to build awareness. This means we
tell news based on the possibility of press coverage, not
automatically every time there is a version.
102 can become v3.102 and we can announce the html/javascript
browser approach, ideally associated with a method for
teachers to try Sugar - SoaS with extra teacher-friendly bits,
or VMs. If that is too ambitious, the v3 marketing push could
wait until 3.104. Sugar brand awareness is on the nonexistent
end of the scale for our ten million teachers, this means we
can set the schedule. It's harder when there is buzz and
momentum, a situation we had after SoaS v1 Strawberry.
Sean.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez
<dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 v2 as Yioryos suggested.
My understanding is that
* If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it
3.102, marketing 3 + some name.
* if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103,
marketing... just won't call it :)
Is that correct?
On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:
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 from a marketing
perspective we get boxed into a major number step
timeframe irrespective of marketing needs. A major
number change should ideally happen when it's ready,
or when we need to communicate a major shift. I still
think associating the existing numbering behind a
major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will
communicate the major number, probably with a name.
And not an unmarketable obscure name, either.
Sean
Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez
<dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
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
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
market...@lists.sugarlabs.org <mailto:market...@lists.sugarlabs.org>
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
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
