[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] Sugar on a Stick v2 Release Naming

[Sean DALY]

Bill - I completely agree our numbering systems are byzantine and
difficult to grasp... there is the Sugar version number, the Fedora
version number, the OLPC-OS version number and the XO build number.

Our marketing strategy is to push Sugar on a Stick, so to simplify
that we picked the next release coming up at the time, called the
current build beta-1, and the release v1 Strawberry
(http://www.sugarlabs.org/press). This worked from a PR standpoint; we
had worldwide coverage in the tech press (with spotty coverage in
education publications though, working on that).

However internally we had been using Soas-1 and SoaS-2, if I'm not
mistaken to refer to the underlying Fedora distro (10 and 11
respectively). It's true that these numbers (or an SoaS-3 if it
exists) will be confusing compared to the "public" version number.

Sebastian, what's your take? Can we "retire" SoaS-{1,2,3} or fold them
into the public v1, v2 numbers?

thanks

Sean


On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Bill Bogstad <bogstad at pobox.com> wrote:
> I've been watching this thread since it began and understand that from
> a marketing perspective numbers are 'ugly'.
> On the other hand, everyone seems to acknowledge that numbers make it
> easier to track things from a development and
> deployment support perspective.   Obviously, that works best if the
> numbers are consistent.  Unfortunately the number usage has NOT been
> consistent.
>
> Martin's original web page with proposed logos seems to indicate that
> the SoaS Strawberrry release was release 1.   "SoaS 1" is also what
> shows up on the the 'ugly?' text oriented plymouth start up screen for
> Strawberry as well.   On the other hand, the CD labels as well as the
> ISO filenames for Strawberry and its test releases all referred to
> themselves as SoaS2.  The current Blueberry? beta ISO calls itself
> SoaS3 internally in the same places that Strawberry calls itself
> SoaS2.  From a deployment support perspective, this is not a good
> thing.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't think of anyway to sink the numbers up again
> that won't result in additional possibilities for confusion.  Are we
> stuck  documenting the fact that the official release number and
> plymouth displayed versions are always one less then the CD label and
> ISO filename?
>
> Bill Bogstad
>