Plasma 5?

[Mark Gaiser]

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Sebastian Kügler <sebas at kde.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am not happy with the 2014.6 name and naming scheme. There I said it.
>
> The reasons for this are multi-fold. First, and to me most importantly: It
> feels awkward. Now that might be because it's new, but it also feels like no
> one else is going to understand it.
>
> My thinking goes towards an option that we had briefly discussed, and I think
> dismissed too quickly, and for the wrong reasons.
>
> So, I'd like to get some feedback on the proposal to call the new Plasma
> release Plasma 5.0, and use the "old" version numbering scheme going forwards.
> That means after 5.0 comes 5.1, 5.2, and so on, same for minor releases
> (however that is going to end up being decided). This feedback can then be
> taken up with the promo and marketing department, I think that we should first
> make up our own minds (for that reason, no cross-post to kde-promo at this
> point).
>
> The baseline, to use "Plasma" as the brand, and only refer to the version as a
> technicality should of course stay the same.
>
> Why do I think 5 is better than 2014.6, or <year>.<month of release>?
>
> - It communicates continuity: Plasma Next really is the continuation of 15+
> years of doing a desktop. It has our DNA all over it, and it's not a
> disconnected "today's thing". Especially to our existing userbase, and those
> just outside of it (other people known to Free desktops), this has a real
> meaning. It's something people love, and sometimes hate, and it's not a
> completely new thing. This is well in line with what we've been talking about
> all along for Plasma Next.
>
> - It's trusted and proven: it works and will cause no problems with packaging,
> and comparing version number
>
> - It solves a bunch of technical inconsistencies (plasmapkg2 vs kcmshell5 --
> why has one the 2 appended, the other 5?), library sonames are 5 as well.
>
> - It indicates (like we did traditionally) that this is the 5th major version,
> building on a new Qt5, and Frameworks 5, we get to re-use that kind of
> consistency.
>
> - To me, it feels just right. I know many others feel that 2014.6 is bad, and
> I've yet to hear somebody that really likes it (might be my limitation of
> course).
>
> Now one of the reasons to not go for Plasma 5 was that "people would say
> that's KDE5, and we don't want that". To be honest, I stopped caring about
> that, if people want to call it KDE5, so be it, we'll call it Plasma 5 and do
> that consistently, as long as people understand what's talked about -- cool.
>
> We won't convince people to stop calling it "KDE 5" by introducing an awkward
> versioning scheme, but we can do that by properly adjusting our communication
> towards that. The distinction between Platform, Workspaces and Applications is
> more clear with our separated release cycles anyway, and perception of that
> will just make this topic easier.

A very massive big +1 to the above.
I never understood the choice of going for "2014.06" since the
reasoning didn't make much sense to me. What you said now makes
complete sense.

I do wonder though, why didn't you folks decide this on the plasma
sprint earlier this year?