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

[Daniel Narvaez]

Yup

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:

> Maybe "Sugar Web" instead of "Sugar Online"?
> We have web activities and Web Services in this release ....
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dwnarvaez at gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> This is just a gut reaction but I feel we should think more in the "Sugar
>> online" direction than in the "Sugar on tablet" one, at least as a first
>> step. I'd love Sugar on tablet as anyone else but I feel it's somewhat
>> unrealistic because it involves skills, moneys and partnerships we don't
>> currently have.
>>
>> I also think we should not completely discard Sugar on netbooks (maybe
>> ultrabooks feels less anachronistic? :P). The hybrids that are hitting the
>> market lately might not be mature, cheap or extremely popular, but it's an
>> interesting direction to explore ... Keyboards are not completely dead
>> yet IMO!
>>
>> 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 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131107/67d155d1/attachment-0001.html>