On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@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? _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
