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

[Daniel Narvaez]

Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS X
for example (though Apple went with numbers for iOS, I sort of wonder the
reason of the difference). Anyway I don't really have a strong opinion
about number vs name for marketing version, I will be happy with whatever
marketing team think it's best :)

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

> As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression
> (at least the name is "The Third" and so :)
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dwnarvaez at gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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
>>
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>
>>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/attachments/20131107/ec015d33/attachment.html>