I also think w should change the major number when we have something
different to show (when we achieved the goal)
Gonzalo
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I now see where I was confused... Normally in developer versioning
you bump the major
Hi,
I think it's wrong to bump marketing version numbers on acount of
technology shifts.
I don't see how i'ts relevant for users that we switched to GTK3, or
even that it is now
possible to build native web activities (it was always possible with a
wrapper).
I see as a much more interesting
thanks for that Sebastian
We haven't had a marketing version number until now (excepting SoaS v1 in
2009 which we implied in our communications was v1), so from a marketing
perspective the only question is whether to go v2 or v3. I don't have a
strong opinion, but the key is that a marketing
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
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com 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
As said before, a name only, is not good to indicate progression
(at least the name is The Third and so :)
Gonzalo
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like
the idea of a name, it would
In hind sight...
The gtk2 - gtk3 would have benefited from a major version change. At
the time, I didn't realized it. From a deployment perspective the
shift represented a major change. In addition to the base software,
all of the necessary activities needed to be migrated, QAed, and
verified if
Walter - my issue with a formal system is, it boxes us into numbers on a
timeframe - what we need from a marketing standpoint is to choose a number
that explains the story we will build. Both v2 and v3 are candidates to be
worked on for that story, where we can refer to v1 as Sugar in production
Apple went numbers+names for OS X, but chose numbers only for iOS - likely
because the look and feel changes so little across versions.
Sean
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we need to indicate progression? It doesn't seem to be an issue for OS
X
9 matches
Mail list logo
