| [virgo-dev] Virgo release branding |
| Past releases of Virgo have consisted of two or three deliverables all at the same version number. This is likely to be true for the next release. However, in the future, we anticipate releasing runtime and tooling together, a bit like a mini release train. At that point, not all the deliverables will have the same version number. In fact, we want the freedom to be able to rev the runtime and tooling independently of each other. So in the future, release branding may become important. Release branding is also a useful marketing device. If we chose the right release brands, they could create some "buzz" in the community. It is also handy for future releases so we can refer to them before we've settled on the version numbers. Would it therefore make sense to adopt branding for the 3.0 release so that the community gets used to a release brand? Examples of release branding are Eclipse and Ubuntu with its alphabetically sequenced release brands (based on animals in the case of Ubuntu), Mac OS (more animals). Counter-examples are Java (unless "Java 6" is counted as a release brand for 1.6) and Tomcat. I guess a Virgo release brand would get a little messy if and when Virgo joins the Eclipse release train as both brands would then apply to the release. But we would expect also to release independently of the release train, so there would be quite a confusing sequence. An alternative to release branding is just to stick with the kernel version number as the "headline" version for a release with other components such as tooling free to have a different version number. What do you think? If you favour release branding, do you have suggestions for the actual brands? Regards, Glyn |