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

[Walter Bender]

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

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at 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 <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
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org