Someone said "branding" so I appeared like a Bloody Mary figure in the mirror.
Why not Plasma 4? Or "Plasma Past"? I mean in all honesty the issue isn't that big except from a communicative aspect (in which case "Plasma Past", "Former Plasma" etc are all good) or a technical aspect (in which case the 4.12.something or just Plasma 4 works) On Monday 07 July 2014 10.16.44 Jonathan Riddell wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 10:36:00AM +0100, John Layt wrote: > > Co-installabilty of Plasma 4 and Plasma 5 with minimal work required > > by the distros is a must if we want to avoid the mess of KDE4. > > Already openSUSE has announced that you can't have both installed at > > once, which will force people to choose one or other, when what we > > really want is for them to be able to try Plasma 5 out while still > > being able to switch back to 4 if there are things that break their > > workflow. > > They won't be co-installable just as konsole won't be co-installable > with its kdelibs4 version, it's a new version of the same programme. > But the parts that are used by applications, libraries and runtime > parts need to be co-installable so kdelibs4 and kf5 applications can > be installed on the same system. > > Your e-mail also highlights a branding issue, now that we are calling > the new version of Plasma, Plasma 5 what do we call the old version. > I've been calling it Plasma 1 as that was the version number used and > it's not a good idea to be revisionist. > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel