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

[Sameer Verma]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal
> point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.
>
> -walter

I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!

I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is
very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely
didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a
number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large
(outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.

Here are some interesting perspectives:
http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names
http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/
http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/

and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

cheers,
Sameer

>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
>> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a 1.0
>> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really
>> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Marketing mailing list
>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>