[Sugar-devel] [Marketing] RFC: Make Sugar 0.102 = Sugar 1.0[ Sugar-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 43]

[Sean DALY]

thanks for that Gonzalo

the key version number criteria for marketing is not that it's a formal
system, it's to simplify a story for people who have little or more likely
no idea what Sugar is. The story we are developing is: we are meeting the
challenge of handheld devices while supporting our 3 million Learners. This
story will be well-served by a v2 or v3 number, but I'm afraid linking the
year will box us into a timeframe when what we need (marketing standpoint
again) is a version number on a flexible timetable according to
circumstances.

F/LOSS projects are not a marketing reference for me, with very few
exceptions they are not good at it at all. My references are the iPod,
Nespresso, Amazon, Coca-Cola, etc.

Sean



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:

> Sean,
> Usually, we are not doing big changes, but incremental changes.
> We are closer to the reality of the linux kernel, where the change to 3.0
> was not related to changes itself, but to the numbers where not
> comfortable,
> and they are planning release version 4.0 by the same reason in one year.
>
> What you think about using years as versions (2013.1 2013.2 or 13.1, 13.2)
> as a way to try incentive to the deployments and the final users
> to be updated?
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> > cc'ing marketing for... a marketing issue
> >
> > Nope, the GTK3 change just passed under the radar. As stated previously I
> > lobbied for a v1 six years ago which is why we are ready for a v2. Or
> even a
> > v3.
> >
> > For building a PR story I can work with v2 or v3, just not v1.
> >
> > The issue with 2.2, 2.4 is that from a marketing perspective we get boxed
> > into a major number step timeframe irrespective of marketing needs. A
> major
> > number change should ideally happen when it's ready, or when we need to
> > communicate a major shift. I still think associating the existing
> numbering
> > behind a major number (e.g. 2.102) keeps continuity. PR will communicate
> the
> > major number, probably with a name. And not an unmarketable obscure name,
> > either.
> >
> > Sean
> > Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to
> marketing
> >> because there wasn't major user visible changes?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in development
> and
> >>> the current numbering makes a lot of sense.
> >>> However, looking from outside 0.102 should be Sugar 3.x where  1.x is
> the
> >>> original, 2.x is the Gtk3/introspection move and now the html5/jc
> >>> (online/ultrabook/tablet) version.
> >>> If you actually consider 0.100 as 3.0 then it can go 3.2, 3.4 etc to
> keep
> >>> up with current numbering.
> >>> Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Sugar-devel mailing list
> >>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Narvaez
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marketing mailing list
> > Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131107/5d3bfb77/attachment.html>