Plasma 5 RC

[Jens Reuterberg]

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 at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel