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

[Daniel Narvaez]

I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like
the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and
marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :)

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> 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
>
> I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!
>
> I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is
> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely
> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a
> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large
> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.
>
> Here are some interesting perspectives:
>
> http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names
> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/
> http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/
>
> and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
>
> cheers,
> Sameer
>
> >
> > 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>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20131107/39f47a58/attachment.html>