Plasma 5 RC

[Jens Reuterberg]

Well the point I'm going for that beyond a technical issue - communications 
wise it doesn't matter really. As long as whatever you say contains some 
indication that its the older version.

As for the technical side of things - I can't comment. But from a 
communicative standpoint it really isn't that big a deal if its packaged 
correctly in communications. 

On Monday 07 July 2014 10.47.00 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> It's not good to rename stuff which has already been released.  When
> KDE branding all changed we still used the terms KDE 3 and KDE 4 to
> talk about old releases, try to be a revisionist rarely works.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Jens Reuterberg wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plasma-devel mailing list
> > Plasma-devel at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel