I'm happy with what I've seen so far with pre3. A few small patches were added and several translation updates. Beyond that, I think all of the "issues" have been packaging.
Ted, unless anyone objects, I'd say it's time for the official 0.42 tgz. (Just be sure you see the "inkscape_version.h.mingw" update I added to the "MakingDists" wiki)
On 7/24/05, Kees Cook <inkscape@...62...> wrote:
Ted, unless anyone objects, I'd say it's time for the official 0.42 tgz.
Wait a sec, it must contain the release notes which I haven't finished yet.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 12:55:32PM -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/24/05, Kees Cook <inkscape@...62...> wrote:
Ted, unless anyone objects, I'd say it's time for the official 0.42 tgz.
Wait a sec, it must contain the release notes which I haven't finished yet.
Ah, whoops. Thanks.
Then... how about a "clear for launch" report...
Code [kees]: Go Docs [bulia]: Hold Translations [adib]: Go?
other areas?
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 12:55 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/24/05, Kees Cook <inkscape@...62...> wrote:
Ted, unless anyone objects, I'd say it's time for the official 0.42 tgz.
Wait a sec, it must contain the release notes which I haven't finished yet.
Ok, send an msg. to the list when done and I will start hacking on the Press Release.
Jon
On 7/24/05, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
Ok, send an msg. to the list when done and I will start hacking on the Press Release.
Apart from being (IMHO) a bit too wordy, the 0.41 press release made a very major error: it spoke about "planning for the 0.42 release", which left many people who read it quickly confused as to which version _this_ is. I saw it reported on some sites as 0.42 apparently because of that.
Also, while a "formal" press release may be necessary for some markets (by the way which exactly?), I don't think we need to write a separate "informal" one as we did last time. For the "informal", why don't we take the "In Brief" section from the release notes and just add the download & complete rel notes links at the end. Trying to rewrite these itemized highlights in prose will lose energy and focus. People like succinct itemized lists and hate marketing-sounding prose.
It's very nice that this time, all our packagers are so prompt. Let's try to minimize the time span between posting the tarball and posting the binaries, this will help make the release more focused. As we are going to package the tarball late today, let's try to make the major packages (rpm, dmg, exe) available by tomorrow's night. Does it sound reasonable?
As this is a really major release, I'd like to ask everyone to do our post-release marketing really energetically this time. E.g. I think we well deserve a Slashdot story; who has experience posting news to Slashdot? I think we should always use the "informal" announcement by default, unless some place specifically requires the "formal" variety. For one thing, I think the guys on the w3c-svg list and in various Linux magazines will be much more interested in the informal announcement with a feature list.
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:12 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/24/05, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
Ok, send an msg. to the list when done and I will start hacking on the Press Release.
Apart from being (IMHO) a bit too wordy, the 0.41 press release made a very major error: it spoke about "planning for the 0.42 release", which left many people who read it quickly confused as to which version _this_ is. I saw it reported on some sites as 0.42 apparently because of that.
Ok, why don't you write the first draft. I'll re-edit.
Also, I have received in the past emails from magazines and press outlets that complain about lack of third person and the too personalized nature of Inkscape press releases and is one of the major reasons that I have professionalized past releases -- it works. Also, third person formal/professional releases is the standard. If you want to be picked up seriously by magazines, news agencies, and other agencies and be heard, this is the standard format.
Other people, companies, press outlets, etc, are not in our community and will not understand some of our community jargon.
Also, while a "formal" press release may be necessary for some markets (by the way which exactly?)
Look at the list in the wiki sir.
, I don't think we need to write a separate "informal" one as we did last time.
I disagree. I think this is part of our project growing...informal for local community and formal for formal press contacts. Realistically, the professional should be the primary release, but I think the dual strategy is a good compromise.
For the "informal", why don't we take the "In Brief" section from the release notes and just add the download & complete rel notes links at the end. Trying to rewrite these itemized highlights in prose will lose energy and focus. People like succinct itemized lists and hate marketing-sounding prose.
All people? That is a lot of people. I agree about not rewriting the prose. But please, look at professional PR from apple, etc, and see that the press release is not a bullet point list, but an overview...a press release is to send out as an announcement. The Changelog and release notes are the thing to show to everyone for more points, but not for the press release which is to sum it all up and highlight the major points...
It's very nice that this time, all our packagers are so prompt. Let's try to minimize the time span between posting the tarball and posting the binaries, this will help make the release more focused. As we are going to package the tarball late today, let's try to make the major packages (rpm, dmg, exe) available by tomorrow's night. Does it sound reasonable?
As this is a really major release, I'd like to ask everyone to do our post-release marketing really energetically this time. E.g. I think we well deserve a Slashdot story; who has experience posting news to Slashdot? I think we should always use the "informal" announcement by default, unless some place specifically requires the "formal" variety. For one thing, I think the guys on the w3c-svg list and in various Linux magazines will be much more interested in the informal announcement with a feature list.
Ok, not sure as to where are releaes process is at. It feels like our release will be tomorrow night with PR going out then.
Jon
On 7/25/05, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
Apart from being (IMHO) a bit too wordy, the 0.41 press release made a very major error: it spoke about "planning for the 0.42 release", which left many people who read it quickly confused as to which version _this_ is. I saw it reported on some sites as 0.42 apparently because of that.
Ok, why don't you write the first draft. I'll re-edit.
As I wrote, my draft for _informal_ announcement is the first section of http://www.inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ReleaseNotes. As for the formal one, I can't write it and I never claimed to. I just explained a couple of points that I didn't like about the 0.41 one.
Also, I have received in the past emails from magazines and press outlets that complain about lack of third person and the too personalized nature of Inkscape press releases and is one of the major reasons that I have professionalized past releases -- it works. Also, third person formal/professional releases is the standard. If you want to be picked up seriously by magazines, news agencies, and other agencies and be heard, this is the standard format.
OK, no problem, I was just wondering. If they specifically request this format, of course we should provide it.
Other people, companies, press outlets, etc, are not in our community and will not understand some of our community jargon.
There's no community jargon in my "In brief". Just standard graphic terms describing what we have in store. If you are into computer graphics at all, you won't have any problems understanding most of it. And if an Inkscape-only term is used, it is because it describes an Inkscape-only feature, not because it sounds cool or catchy.
, I don't think we need to write a separate "informal" one as we did last time.
I disagree. I think this is part of our project growing...informal for local community and formal for formal press contacts.
Sure. Note that I didn't say we don't _need_ the informal one. I just said we don't need to _write_ it because it's largely written.
Realistically, the professional should be the primary release, but I think the dual strategy is a good compromise.
OK, let's not call any of them "primary". Each one is primary for its audience :)
All people? That is a lot of people. I agree about not rewriting the prose. But please, look at professional PR from apple, etc, and see that the press release is not a bullet point list, but an overview...a press release is to send out as an announcement.
What you say is true about the formal announcement, for situations where it is required. But I don't think it's applicable to what you called the informal announcement which has its uses as well. That one, luckily, does not need to imitate a corporate entity in any way.
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 02:38 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 7/25/05, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
Apart from being (IMHO) a bit too wordy, the 0.41 press release made a very major error: it spoke about "planning for the 0.42 release", which left many people who read it quickly confused as to which version _this_ is. I saw it reported on some sites as 0.42 apparently because of that.
Ok, why don't you write the first draft. I'll re-edit.
As I wrote, my draft for _informal_ announcement is the first section of http://www.inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ReleaseNotes. As for the formal one, I can't write it and I never claimed to. I just explained a couple of points that I didn't like about the 0.41 one.
ok.
Also, I have received in the past emails from magazines and press outlets that complain about lack of third person and the too personalized nature of Inkscape press releases and is one of the major reasons that I have professionalized past releases -- it works. Also, third person formal/professional releases is the standard. If you want to be picked up seriously by magazines, news agencies, and other agencies and be heard, this is the standard format.
OK, no problem, I was just wondering. If they specifically request this format, of course we should provide it.
ok.
Other people, companies, press outlets, etc, are not in our community and will not understand some of our community jargon.
There's no community jargon in my "In brief". Just standard graphic terms describing what we have in store. If you are into computer graphics at all, you won't have any problems understanding most of it. And if an Inkscape-only term is used, it is because it describes an Inkscape-only feature, not because it sounds cool or catchy.
, I don't think we need to write a separate "informal" one as we did last time.
I disagree. I think this is part of our project growing...informal for local community and formal for formal press contacts.
Sure. Note that I didn't say we don't _need_ the informal one. I just said we don't need to _write_ it because it's largely written.
ok.
Realistically, the professional should be the primary release, but I think the dual strategy is a good compromise.
OK, let's not call any of them "primary". Each one is primary for its audience :)
All people? That is a lot of people. I agree about not rewriting the prose. But please, look at professional PR from apple, etc, and see that the press release is not a bullet point list, but an overview...a press release is to send out as an announcement.
What you say is true about the formal announcement, for situations where it is required. But I don't think it's applicable to what you called the informal announcement which has its uses as well. That one, luckily, does not need to imitate a corporate entity in any way.
Ok...I don't think writing a professional press release is imitating a corporation, rather it is the standard style of writing press releases.
Ok, I'm checking out the PR now...man...getting sleepy.
Jon
We're "GO" on all fronts. Just waiting for Ted to do the packaging. I'm standing by for creating the static gcc3 i386 and i686 RPMs.
A quick word of caution: Poeir, it looks like you committed (accidentally?) the solution you were talking about for bug #1243952. pjrm and I should be the only people committing code right now. I've reversed the change until after the 0.42 release, just to be on the safe side. (I realize it's a very small change, but pjrm reminded me that perhaps it's set to 25 for a reason. Best we find out for sure after the release.)
participants (3)
-
bulia byak -
Jon Phillips -
Kees Cook