Plasma naming scheme

[Aleix Pol]

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeiffer at kde.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> while writing up a vision for Plasma interaction, the VDG noticed that it was
> unclear exactly what terms to use when referring to Plasma Desktop
> specifically, so we thought it would make sense to clarify this.
>
> Therefore, we went ahead and drafted some communication guidelines I'd like to
> present for discussion:
>
> - When talking about the the Plasma technology generically, use only "Plasma",
> omitting the "5" as that is just an iteration of Plasma.
>
>
> - When talking about a particular version of the technology, but not a
> specific shell, use "Plasma [version]" e.g. "Plasma 5.1".
>
> - When talking about the a specific shell but not about a specific version,
> use "Plasma [shell], e.g. "Plasma Desktop"
>
> - When talking about a specific shell in a particular version, use  "Plasma
> [version] [shell]" e.g. "Plasma 5.2 Desktop", "Plasma 5.4 Active"
>
> For example in release announcement we'd talk about the Plasma 5.2 release and
> when there are shell specific changes we could write "Plasma Desktop now has
> addition X"
>
> Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and
> where should we announce it?

Well, it's still weird as Plasma is more than a technology. Also note
there's a Plasma framework.

To me, the biggest problem with this is that you're just covering part
of it here, given that Plasma is not only the shell(s) but the entire
solution as well (kwin, system settings, some of the apps) or maybe
not.

I've always missed something there, many people have tried to explain
it to me, maybe I'm a bit hard.

Aleix

PS: thanks for raising the issue, I keep failing to explain it
baltasar (kdeblog.com) or, well, we even fail to discuss Plasma in the
office, where we often end up saying "plasma? which plasma?"