[Marketing] [Sugar-devel] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0

[Daniel Narvaez]

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 <gonzalo at laptop.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'gonzalo at 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 at lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org');>
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20131107/2228b1ed/attachment.html>