<table><tr><td style="">aacid added a comment.
</td></tr></table><br /><div><div><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #8C98B8;
color: #6B748C;
font-style: italic;
margin: 4px 0 12px 0;
padding: 8px 12px;
background-color: #F8F9FC;">
<div style="font-style: normal;
padding-bottom: 4px;">In <a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812#182201" style="background-color: #e7e7e7;
border-color: #e7e7e7;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 0 4px;
font-weight: bold;
color: black;text-decoration: none;">T10812#182201</a>, <a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/p/ngraham/" style="
border-color: #f1f7ff;
color: #19558d;
background-color: #f1f7ff;
border: 1px solid transparent;
border-radius: 3px;
font-weight: bold;
padding: 0 4px;">@ngraham</a> wrote:</div>
<div style="margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 0;
color: rgb(107, 116, 140);"><p>If you're suggesting that Kubuntu could change their versioning scheme, that's a tacit admission that you do think there's a problem (otherwise there would be no suggestion of a proposed change or solution). It's a problem from a user perspective for just the reason I gave: users confuse our app versions with Ubuntu's own version numbers. "Confused users" is a problem. I agree that it's not a huge issue but I think it <em>is</em> an issue. Maybe it's not worth fixing. But it's an issue.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>As i clearly said I don't think it's a problem, but if KUbuntu developers think it is, it is something they have the power to fix by themselves.</p>
<blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: #f8f9fc;"><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #8C98B8;
color: #6B748C;
font-style: italic;
margin: 4px 0 12px 0;
padding: 8px 12px;
background-color: #F8F9FC;">
<div style="font-style: normal;
padding-bottom: 4px;">In <a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812#182195" style="background-color: #e7e7e7;
border-color: #e7e7e7;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 0 4px;
font-weight: bold;
color: black;text-decoration: none;">T10812#182195</a>, <a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/p/aacid/" style="
border-color: #f1f7ff;
color: #19558d;
background-color: #f1f7ff;
border: 1px solid transparent;
border-radius: 3px;
font-weight: bold;
padding: 0 4px;">@aacid</a> wrote:</div>
<div style="margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 0;
color: rgb(107, 116, 140);"><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: #f8f9fc;"><p>There are no LTS app versions the way there are with Plasma; distros that ship Plasma LTS get stuck with old apps versions that have bugs which have been fixed in later releases</p></blockquote>
<p>I personally disagree this is a problem. If distributions want bug fixes they can either</p>
<ul class="remarkup-list">
<li class="remarkup-list-item">update to a new release</li>
<li class="remarkup-list-item">do the work of doing an LTS branch themselves.</li>
<li class="remarkup-list-item">give us money so we can hire someone to the work for them</li>
</ul></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Updating to a new release isn't an option for the discrete release distros, particular for their LTS releases. Asking them to do an LTS branch themselves or pay us to do it is unreasonable; it's our software and we define our release schedule. All I'm saying is that I think adding LTS versions of apps is something that would be really nice for the discrete release distros that ship our LTS Plasma versions. Right now they can continuously take our LTS Plasma bugfix releases to ensure that the Plasma they ship gets better and better over time, but they can't do this for our apps. This isn't just bad for their users; it's bad for us because we need to handle more time-wasting bugzilla tickets for issues that have already been fixed from people using versions of our software that could be 2 or more years old.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, we just need to get users away from bad distros. I'm 92.41% sure those distros don't have any issue updating to a new firefox or chrome when it comes out. But on the other hand they want <strong>us</strong> to do extra work for some weird rule, i say <strong>NO</strong>, they are the problem and we have to fight back. Distributions decided they don't want to give users updates, they have to live with that. Users decided they want to use a distribution that doesn't give them updates, they have to live with that or change to a better distribution or use snap/flatpak (a story we have to improve at some point)</p>
<blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: #f8f9fc;"><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #a7b5bf; color: #464c5c; font-style: italic; margin: 4px 0 12px 0; padding: 4px 12px; background-color: #f8f9fc;"><p>If this comes from an application developer that wants to maintain 3 branches (LTS, stable, devel) it'd be another thing. Do we know of any developer that would like to maintain such scheme for KDE Applications?</p></blockquote>
<p>I mean, that's what we do for Plasma and it's not a problem.</p></blockquote>
<p>Comparing Plasma and KDE Applications is like comparing RedHat with BlueSystems, the amount of developer-power per line Plasma has compared to KDE Applications is probably several orders of magnitude bigger, so what works in one doesn't necessarily have to work in another case.</p></div></div><br /><div><strong>TASK DETAIL</strong><div><a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812">https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812</a></div></div><br /><div><strong>To: </strong>ngraham, aacid<br /><strong>Cc: </strong>aacid, Yakuake, Okular, Dolphin, Kate, Spectacle, Konsole, Gwenview, KDE PIM, KDE Games, KDE Applications, ngraham<br /></div>