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

[Sean DALY]

Yes Gonzalo, from a marketing standpoint 0.102 is as unworkable as 0.82 was
and all the numbers in between. However I'm afraid v1.0 will be a mistake.

I'm mystified, why would you think I don't see anything good in Sugar?

Sean




On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:

> Ok, I am not a marketing guy.
>
> May be you are right and v2 is better than v1,
> but I am sure any of these is better than 0.102
>
> I think we can't claim a Tablet version of Sugar, but we have a lot to
> show.
> I hope you agree on that. If our marketing guys don't see anything
> good in Sugar,
> we have a problem.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131107/1a182c50/attachment-0001.html>