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

[Sean DALY]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131107/6d0094cc/attachment.html>