Plasma 5?

[Aleix Pol]

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:

> 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 ship outdated versions and that users get upset when we tell them that what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 they use is outdated.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
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
>
>
Regarding 1), put it as you wish, but in the end it's KDE 5 without
applications.

Aleix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20140506/78b06bb1/attachment-0001.html>