<html><head></head><body><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 September 2016 11:55:50 BST, Jonathan Riddell <jr@jriddell.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:52:32PM +1200, Ben Cooksley wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> It seems that KDE PIM, despite being part of the Applications release,<br /> doesn't align it's internal version numbers with the rest of the<br /> Applications release.<br /> <br /> This causes issues - as we've received complaints about various<br /> products (all being PIM products) missing versions on <a href="http://bugs.kde.org">bugs.kde.org</a>,<br /> due to this mismatch. It's also confusing for users.<br /> <br /> Can PIM please fall in line with the rest of Applications?<br /></blockquote><br />This is common across lots of apps in Applications. e.g. Umbrello is at 2.20.99 internally. It's always been the case.<br /><br />Jonathan<br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
This idea was discussed a year or two ago, and it was agreed then that applications would keep their own version numbering, if desired.<br>
<br>
The KDE Applications version is simply a date indication. It's very useful, for developers who want it, to be able to have an individual application version which has a meaning in functional terms.<br>
<br>
I strongly disagree with this proposal to change version numbers.<br>
<br>
--<br>
David Jarvie<br>
KAlarm author, KDE developer<br>
<a href="http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm">http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm</a></body></html>