Plasma 5?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday 05 May 2014 17:56:04 Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Jens:
> > the best option is to simply go with "Plasma by KDE"
> 
> and
> 
> > "So what version am I running?" is "Plasma 2", "Plasma 5",
> 
> +1
> 
> I don't mind the version 5.x (though, I didn't mind any of the proposals)
> 
> Wondering what is Martin's stance on this since the year.month was his
> child.

oh well, as I'm addressed I'm going to answer.

As it's well known I dislike the 5 for two reasons:

1. It will end in "Plasma" == "KDE". sebas's point to that is that he doesn't 
care, I understand that, but on the other hand I think it's a lost 
opportunity.
2. I'm afraid of people discarding the version because of fear of repeating 
4.0.

If the version number is turned into a pure technical thing and never ever 
mentioned any where in the promo, I think it can work. But that also requires 
that media is informed why we don't want to have the technical version to be 
prominent. Otherwise we will have "KDE 5.0 released" - which I just don't want 
to see happen.

Now what about the year.month scheme: in my opinion version numbers don't 
carry any information but people try to interpret information into it, which 
can only fail. Thus I would like to move away from a version number scheme 
which allows to interpret. The year.month scheme carries one explicit 
information: the age the software has. In a year it's not possible to know how 
old 5.3 or 5.0 is. With 2015.04 and 2014.06 this is obvious. Why do I think it 
is important to have this information? Because we see quite often that distros 
ship outdated versions and that users get upset when we tell them that what 
they use is outdated. With such a version number they would be able to see 
this themselves and maybe even start to look for a newer version, kick the 
distros a** or whatever ;-)

In the end I don't care what will be decided. This has been brought up too 
often for me to care about. I don't want to see a 5 in any public 
communication, also not in our blog posts. If it's internal, it's fine, but 
please no 5 in public communication. I would be way happier with 2 which I 
think is the logical successor to Plasma 1, but I understand sebas's 
argumentation for the 5.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20140505/ee7e585c/attachment.sig>