Re: Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-20 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Monday 20 January 2014 11:41:10 Martin Klapetek wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:02 AM, argonel wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > >> But of course the main idea behind the version pattern change to a date > >> based > >> version number is to add more info

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-20 Thread Martin Klapetek
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:02 AM, argonel wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > >> >> But of course the main idea behind the version pattern change to a date >> based >> version number is to add more information to it. The main problem with >> version >> numbers is

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-19 Thread argonel
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote: > > But of course the main idea behind the version pattern change to a date > based > version number is to add more information to it. The main problem with > version > numbers is that they don't carry any information and nobody knows how ol

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-18 Thread Martin Graesslin
On Saturday 18 January 2014 21:53:55 Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer 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 f

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-18 Thread Valorie Zimmerman
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer 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." so "Plasma 2.1". There is nothing wron

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-18 Thread Thomas Pfeiffer
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." so "Plasma 2.1". There is nothing wrong with that. It > works for tons of software out there includin

Re: Plasma Next Naming

2014-01-18 Thread Mark Gaiser
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote: > Hey, > > Until now, we've been using "Plasma 2" as a working title for the next version > of Plasma. We never formalized this, and the last discussion we had about this > died out without producing a clear result. We've gone over these poi