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

[Martin Dengler]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
> > release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
> > Fedora 11.
> >
> > I'm just wondering why "SoaS-2" is in use... non-initiates will assume
> > that means SoaS release 2 (Blueberry), don't you think?
>
> I'm a long-time watcher of the mailing lists and (now) a developer and
> I was/am confused.

As you've explained which number corresponds to what, I assume you're
not really still confused, really.  I sympathise with your prior
confusion and have mentioned two ways out of this.  You've mentioned
one.  Let's pick one of those, or something else.

> What do you think is going to happen when some random IT guy/power
> user tries to report problems?

I don't have to suppose.  I know.  Look at the mailing lists.  People
say:

1) "I'm having a problem with Sugar"; or

2) "I am having a problem with ISO xxxx"; or

3) "I'm having a problem with strawberry".

1) is not from your "IT guy/power user" segment.  2) and 3) are fine
and precise.  Your fears are unfounded.

> At a minimum, there needs to be a prominent wiki page somewhere
> documenting which number corresponds to what.

Then do it.  Nobody's stopping you.

> If someone says that it will be fixed in Sugar 0.88 (which is likely
> to be the response from a developer), as an end user (or supporter
> of same); I shouldn't have to dig through mailing list archive
> archives to figure out what that means.

Well then document it.  You are confusing the Sugar software with the
Sugar on a Stick distribution.  Sugar 0.88 has no installer and never
will.  So you have to go to SoaS, OpenSUSE education, Ubunutu, or
other distribution vendor's web site to figure out what that means.


> [wizard-level linux "viewing files" and other barriers to
> developers.]  We are punishing them for their curiosity by having a
> gratuitous inconsistency.

It's not gratiutious, and your tone isn't exciting me to fix your
problem.

> To: Martin:  I'm not objecting to v2 (we have no choice).  I'm saying
> we have to publicly document what goes with what.

We do have a choice.  I've presented two, both of which I prefer to
your suggestion (do nothing).

> Bill Bogstad

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090914/82da80e7/attachment.pgp