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

[Daniel Narvaez]

You are talking developer version here right?  We would have no obvious way
to map it to the marketing version then. Maybe we don't need one though I'm
not sure.

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Walter Bender 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
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> 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<javascript:;>>
> 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:;>
> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marketing mailing list
> > Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20131107/a3728e04/attachment-0001.html>