Sean DALY wrote:
> Sebastian, what's your take? Can we "retire" SoaS-{1,2,3} or fold them
> into the public v1, v2 numbers?
Okay, let me shed some light in here, though I think this has already
been discussed in length.
In the early days when I started working on SoaS, we still had internal
bui
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:17:42AM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> [non-release-naming issue]
Please take this to the mailing list to which it belongs:
sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org.
> Bill Bogstad
Martin
pgphosDgskPkK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Sean DALY wrote:
> As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
> release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
> Fedora 11.
>
> I'm just wondering why "SoaS-2" is in use... non-initiates will assume
> that means SoaS release
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:27:29PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
> As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
> release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
> Fedora 11.
We've agreed the Sugar on a Stick v2 Release Name to be "Blueberry",
and nobody's objected t
As long as no one (including developers) is confused that "SoaS
release 1( Strawberry)" alias "SoaS-2" is running Sugar v0.84 and
Fedora 11.
I'm just wondering why "SoaS-2" is in use... non-initiates will assume
that means SoaS release 2 (Blueberry), don't you think?
thanks
Sean
On Mon, Sep 14
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:20:43PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> I've been watching this thread since it began and understand that from
> a marketing perspective numbers are 'ugly'.
Numbers are for the developers, ice cream flavours are for the press /
GUI users, as I understand it.
> On the other
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:18:55PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
> Bill - I completely agree our numbering systems are byzantine and
> difficult to grasp... there is the Sugar version number, the Fedora
> version number, the OLPC-OS version number and the XO build number.
The numbering is for developers
Bill - I completely agree our numbering systems are byzantine and
difficult to grasp... there is the Sugar version number, the Fedora
version number, the OLPC-OS version number and the XO build number.
Our marketing strategy is to push Sugar on a Stick, so to simplify
that we picked the next relea
Great thanks Gary!
Sean
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2009, at 21:40, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>
>> Martin Dengler wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
re marketing course: in fact I have accepted Mel's invitat
On 12 Sep 2009, at 21:40, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> Martin Dengler wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
>>> re marketing course: in fact I have accepted Mel's invitation to
>>> do a
>>> classroom for Fedora.
>>
>> Congratulations.
>>
>>> re logos: Strawberry=6,
Martin Dengler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
>> re marketing course: in fact I have accepted Mel's invitation to do a
>> classroom for Fedora.
>
> Congratulations.
>
>> re logos: Strawberry=6, Blueberry=4, and 5 we'll use some other time
>
> Very clear - thanks
I've been watching this thread since it began and understand that from
a marketing perspective numbers are 'ugly'.
On the other hand, everyone seems to acknowledge that numbers make it
easier to track things from a development and
deployment support perspective. Obviously, that works best if the
12 matches
Mail list logo
