[Marketing] [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Sugar on a Stick v2 Release Naming

[Martin Dengler]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:20:43PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> I've been watching this thread since it began and understand that from
> a marketing perspective numbers are 'ugly'.

Numbers are for the developers, ice cream flavours are for the press /
GUI users, as I understand it.

> 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.

Every numerical series has been monotonically increasing.  They're
completely consistent; you just seem to find them surprising.  To wit:

> 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.

Consistent.  Yes, the text screen is ugly.  I wish it weren't, but oh
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.

CD labels, yes.  ISO filenames, no:

http://download.sugarlabs.org/soas/releases/soas-strawberry.iso

For the CD labels, boot screens, etc., that mention "SoaS2": this is
not the same as the marketing "release number" that is what's on the
page discussing the marketing naming ("Martin's original web page").

I agree this is surprising and not optimal.  But it's consisent, as
SoaS2 is not the marking release number.

> The current Blueberry? beta ISO calls itself SoaS3 internally in
> the same places that Strawberry calls itself SoaS2.

...consistent...

>  From a deployment support perspective, this is not a good thing.

Apart from being shown on the boot screen and /etc/issue, which the
people you're worried about should never see, where is this an issue?

> Unfortunately, I can't think of anyway to sink the numbers up again
> that won't result in additional possibilities for confusion.

How about just calling the Blueberry release "SoaS2" everywhere?  Or
just marketing the next release as v3?

>  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?

ibid.  The ISO filename does not include a release number.  The ISO
filename is soas-strawberry.iso.

> Bill Bogstad

Martin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20090913/883d5c8f/attachment.pgp