On 5/17/13, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide if we want the next release to be 1.0 or 0.100.
One asks, what should one call the software to be released?
I will not bore people by repeating why I think Sugar is a bad name.
By now, its use is fait accompli. But
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide if we want the next release to be 1.0 or 0.100.
Here is the features we are
Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com writes:
I feel that 0.100 is even more unmarketable than 0.98.
Agreed. Mathematically, it reads like a regression. Instead of
reaching some definite level of maturity, it gives the signal that
Sugar is in its early alpha (which is clearly wrong IMHO.)
--
On 20 May 2013 12:19, Bastien b...@laptop.org wrote:
Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com writes:
I feel that 0.100 is even more unmarketable than 0.98.
Agreed. Mathematically, it reads like a regression. Instead of
reaching some definite level of maturity, it gives the signal that
Sugar is in
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide if we want the next release to be 1.0 or 0.100.
Here is the features we are planning for it.
* Develop an HTML5 based toolkit for activities
* Multiple
-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org; iaep
iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [Marketing] Sugar 0.100 or 1.0
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide if we want
We can't go with 1.0 unless we change the numbering system.
The current system means it will take another decade to get to v3.0. I and
perhaps others will have far more grey hair by then.
I proposed several years ago that the developer version numbers (not to
mention the OLPC OS version numbers)
Thanks so much for the well thought feedback, Sean.
On 17 May 2013 18:04, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
We can't go with 1.0 unless we change the numbering system.
The current system means it will take another decade to get to v3.0. I and
perhaps others will have far more grey hair by
