On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer <colo...@autistici.org> wrote: > On Saturday 18 January 2014 15:53:16 Mark Gaiser wrote: > >> I don't see anything wrong with naming the next plasma as just "Plasma >> 2". and subsequent releases should follow the name: "Plasma >> 2.<update>" so "Plasma 2.1". There is nothing wrong with that. It >> works for tons of software out there including the Linux kernel. >> Changing to something more fancy adds exactly nothing. >> So i disagree and judging from the responses thus far it seems like >> it's going to happen anyway. That leaves me to the known phrase: "if >> you can't beat them, join them". > > Code names aside, this would still mean that we'd have a progression from > Plasma 4.11 (nobody outside KDE calls it "Plasma 1") to Plasma 2, which at > least I would not be able to properly explain to anyone. > Changing the numbering scheme would clearly indicate that the next plasma > version is not just the next iteration after 4.11, but something different > altogether.
Has the "Plasma 5" idea been dropped entirely? That jump in numbering would show "something different altogether" and we could still do "Plasma 5 by KDE." And if the plasma devels want to call it "Angelfish" among themselves, I think that's cool. Anglerfish are pretty cool too, and are sorta meta. Valorie -- http://about.me/valoriez _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
