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: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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 <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org')">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </blockquote> -- Daniel Narvaez