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

[Gonzalo Odiard]

With our history, and looking at how disconnected the deployments
can be of our development track, I am really tempted of looking for
a number schema related to the year...

Gonzalo


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS
> X for example (though Apple went with numbers for iOS, I sort of wonder the
> reason of the difference). Anyway I don't really have a strong opinion
> about number vs name for marketing version, I will be happy with whatever
> marketing team think it's best :)
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>> As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression
>> (at least the name is "The Third" and so :)
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I
>>> like the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and
>>> marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131107/d1366042/attachment.html>