On Thursday 17 July 2014 08:49:47 Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote: > On Thursday 17 July 2014 08:13:59 Shantanu Tushar Jha wrote: > > Looking from a user's perspective who has been using KDE for some > > time now, > > > this sounds confusing. The reason is that Plasma is 5 and then > > applications > > > will be called 2014.mm, its just too much of a difference. And I'm not > > just > > guessing, I've answered questions from such users on #kde while trying > > not > > > to confuse them and it was difficult. > > Hi, I must admit that I see it rather the opposite way :) > > For me (when looking back at my user-but-not-developer time), I was > always slightly confused why KDE SC release numbers were different to the > application versions. Using a naming scheme that only carries the date of > the release would solve this. > > One could argue that this is the same with KF5/Plasma as they also consist > of several apps/libs with their own version numbers. But from my point of > view, KF5/Plasma are something that is "more consistent" in providing a > foundation for development or a consistent user experience, which an > applications release hardly can do. > > If using naming schemes like YYYY.MM, what would be the style for minor > releases? Appending days is probably not a good solution ;) Yet increasing > the month counter would not make it clear if the release is a major or a > minor/bugfix release.
In the Plasma team we considered the YYYY.MM scheme. We thought about YYYY.MM.x with x being 0, 1, 2... for the bugfix releases. So the initial release would be 2014.12.0 while the January bugfix release would be 2014.12.1. Cheers Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<