On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2014 17:56:04 Ivan Čukić wrote: > > Jens: > > > the best option is to simply go with "Plasma by KDE" > > > > and > > > > > "So what version am I running?" is "Plasma 2", "Plasma 5", > > > > +1 > > > > I don't mind the version 5.x (though, I didn't mind any of the proposals) > > > > Wondering what is Martin's stance on this since the year.month was his > > child. > > oh well, as I'm addressed I'm going to answer. > > As it's well known I dislike the 5 for two reasons: > > 1. It will end in "Plasma" == "KDE". sebas's point to that is that he > doesn't > care, I understand that, but on the other hand I think it's a lost > opportunity. > 2. I'm afraid of people discarding the version because of fear of repeating > 4.0. > > If the version number is turned into a pure technical thing and never ever > mentioned any where in the promo, I think it can work. But that also > requires > that media is informed why we don't want to have the technical version to > be > prominent. Otherwise we will have "KDE 5.0 released" - which I just don't > want > to see happen. > > Now what about the year.month scheme: in my opinion version numbers don't > carry any information but people try to interpret information into it, > which > can only fail. Thus I would like to move away from a version number scheme > which allows to interpret. The year.month scheme carries one explicit > information: the age the software has. In a year it's not possible to know > how > old 5.3 or 5.0 is. With 2015.04 and 2014.06 this is obvious. Why do I > think it > is important to have this information? Because we see quite often that > distros > ship outdated versions and that users get upset when we tell them that what > they use is outdated. With such a version number they would be able to see > this themselves and maybe even start to look for a newer version, kick the > distros a** or whatever ;-) > > In the end I don't care what will be decided. This has been brought up too > often for me to care about. I don't want to see a 5 in any public > communication, also not in our blog posts. If it's internal, it's fine, but > please no 5 in public communication. I would be way happier with 2 which I > think is the logical successor to Plasma 1, but I understand sebas's > argumentation for the 5. > > Cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel > > Regarding 1), put it as you wish, but in the end it's KDE 5 without applications. Aleix
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel