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

[David Farning]

In hind sight...

The gtk2 -> gtk3 would have benefited from a major version change. At
the time, I didn't realized it. From a deployment perspective the
shift represented a major change. In addition to the base software,
all of the necessary activities needed to be migrated, QAed, and
verified if the deployment wanted a consistent user experience across
all activities.

>From a deployment perspective, it might be valuable to denote the next
major API change/upgrade (web activities) with a major version bump to
clearly indicate to users and deployers that web actives are complete
in version X.

FWIW, this is a departure, learned the hard way, from my preference
for time base number as used by Ubuntu.

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
David Farning
Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com