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

[Gonzalo Odiard]

I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)

Gonzalo


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer versioning
> you bump the major number when you achieved a certain goal (say have an
> Online experience you can be proud of). Here we are bumping when starting
> to work towards the goal instead. I don't see that as an issue, just need
> to be clear about it.
>
> So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is the
> rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it?
>
>
> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:
>
>> Daniel - if we can work out where SL is going, we can build a PR story.
>> If we aren't sure, it's better to communicate other aspects (TA Days,
>> Google Code-In, the TripAdvisor grant).
>>
>> I like v3 as a major version, step versions could be called 3.102, 3.103,
>> 3.104 by developers, while marketing would call it 3 and a name. If we are
>> lucky and the name ("Online", "Touch", "Hand", "Cloud", or whatever - this
>> needs work) catches on, we can keep it through step versions.
>>
>> It's important to understand that in the complete absence of a
>> marketing/promotion budget (with the exception of the newswire 10-pack
>> which was voted by the SLOBs), effective PR is our chief resource-effective
>> way to build awareness. This means we tell news based on the possibility of
>> press coverage, not automatically every time there is a version.
>>
>> 102 can become v3.102 and we can announce the html/javascript browser
>> approach, ideally associated with a method for teachers to try Sugar - SoaS
>> with extra teacher-friendly bits, or VMs. If that is too ambitious, the v3
>> marketing push could wait until 3.104. Sugar brand awareness is on the
>> nonexistent end of the scale for our ten million teachers, this means we
>> can set the schedule. It's harder when there is buzz and momentum, a
>> situation we had after SoaS v1 Strawberry.
>>
>> Sean.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you about major.minor, with major being the marketing
>>> version and minor the developers one. Did I get that right? Does anyone
>>> disagree?
>>>
>>> What I'm not sure to understand is which major number you would like to
>>> be used for the next release. To make it easier let's say we are currently
>>> v2 as Yioryos suggested. My understanding is that
>>>
>>> * If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it 3.102, marketing
>>> 3  + some name.
>>> * if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103, marketing... just
>>> won't call it :)
>>>
>>> Is that correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Narvaez
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131108/007832eb/attachment.html>