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