<div dir="ltr">With our history, and looking at how disconnected the deployments<div>can be of our development track, I am really tempted of looking for</div><div>a number schema related to the year...</div><div><br></div> <div>Gonzalo</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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 :)<div> <div><div class="h5"> <br>On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression<div> (at least the name is "The Third" and so :)</div><div><br></div><div>Gonzalo</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5"> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div class="h5"> 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 :)<div> <div><br><br> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender <<a>walter.bender@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal<br> > point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102.<br> ><br> > -walter<br> <br> I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it!<br> <br> I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is<br> very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely<br> didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a<br> number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large<br> (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand.<br> <br> Here are some interesting perspectives:<br> <a href="http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names" target="_blank">http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names</a><br> <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/" target="_blank">http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/</a><br> <a href="http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/" target="_blank">http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/</a><br> <br> and of course, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning</a><br> <br> cheers,<br> Sameer<br> <br> ><br> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any<br> >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a 1.0<br> >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really<br> >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest...<br> >><br> >><br> >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:<br> >>><br> >>> If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a press<br> >>> release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd the<br> >>> list.<br> >>><br> >>> As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years after<br> >>> entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e.<br> >>> teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of<br> >>> production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing at a<br> >>> Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar Reaches<br> >>> V1".<br> >>><br> >>> We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6 was<br> >>> renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an<br> >>> easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a first<br> >>> non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the<br> >>> underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant.<br> >>><br> >>> We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big deal.<br> >>> In my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name i.e.<br> >>> "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs marketing<br> >>> work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven years<br> >>> of production.<br> >>><br> >>> The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being<br> >>> understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be<br> >>> associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc., which<br> >>> would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps become<br> >>> irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development<br> >>> mode.<br> >>><br> >>> I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six<br> >>> years ago [1]...<br> >>><br> >>> (!)<br> >>><br> >>> So I think we are ready for v2.<br> >>><br> >>> Sean.<br> >>><br> >>> [1] <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html</a><br> >>><br> >>><br> >>><br> >>><br> >>> On </blockquote></div></div></div></div><a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> </font></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br><br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>