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.<div>
<br></div><div>So the proposal for next release is version 3.102. Thoughts? Is the rationale clear? Anyone unhappy with it?<br><div><br>On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div>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).</div><div><br>
</div>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.<div>
<br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sean.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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">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?<div>
<br></div><div>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</div>
<div><br></div><div>* If it's a release we can PR, developers will call it 3.102, marketing 3 + some name.</div><div>* if we cannot PR it, developers will call it 2.103, marketing... just won't call it :)</div><div>
<br></div><div>Is that correct?<div><div><br><br>On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
cc'ing marketing for... a marketing issue<div>
<br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For building a PR story I can work with v2 or v3, just not v1.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sean</div><div>Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a>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">Hmm I suppose the 1.x -> 2.x switch would have not made sense to marketing because there wasn't major user visible changes?<div>
<div><br><br>On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
For sugar developers their is certainly a continuation in development and the current numbering makes a lot of sense.<br>
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. <br>
If you actually consider 0.100 as 3.0 then it can go 3.2, 3.4 etc to keep up with current numbering.<br>
Should make marketing happy with minimal disruption.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
<a>Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
</blockquote><br><br></div></div><span><font color="#888888">-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br><br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
<a>Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><span><font color="#888888"><br><br>-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br>-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br><br>