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 numbers are consistent. Unfortunately the number usage has NOT been consistent.
Martin's original web page with proposed logos seems to indicate that the SoaS Strawberrry release was release 1. "SoaS 1" is also what shows up on the the 'ugly?' text oriented plymouth start up screen for Strawberry as well. On the other hand, the CD labels as well as the ISO filenames for Strawberry and its test releases all referred to themselves as SoaS2. The current Blueberry? beta ISO calls itself SoaS3 internally in the same places that Strawberry calls itself SoaS2. From a deployment support perspective, this is not a good thing. Unfortunately, I can't think of anyway to sink the numbers up again that won't result in additional possibilities for confusion. Are we stuck documenting the fact that the official release number and plymouth displayed versions are always one less then the CD label and ISO filename? Bill Bogstad _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel