On 3 June 2014 17:58, David Edmundson <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote:
> I like the proposed year.month naming system for the big groups of > applications. > > Without it we will be in a horrible mess of having a time where we have: > Frameworks 5.6 (on their monthly cycle) > Workspace 5.3 (releasing earlier) > Applications 5.0 > > Lots of things starting with 5.x but not being the same is going to be > a ridiculously confusing message to convey every release. > > I'd like the workspace to go that route too, we decided we'd do that, > then some people undecided it.. so I don't know what we're currently > doing. As I said, Release Number != Version Number, and we already have some inconsistent app version numbers inside and outside the SC: Okular is currently 0.18.1, Kate (according to "About Kate" at least) is 3.13.1, NM is 0.9.8, Telepathy is 0.8.1, KMyMoney is 4.6.4. Heck, Workspace is even currently 4.11 while everything else is 4.13! I think we get too hung up on the actual numbers sometimes, do users really know or care? People cope. When it comes to Apps the version number shouldn't matter at all, it's mostly meaningless, just 1 more than the last release. With split release cycles, and the possibility of more apps joining/leaving the release cycle over time, or say pim skipping a few releases until ready, app version numbers will end up all over the place. That's why I like a dated Applications release number, it's just saying we have a grouped release on that date, it says nothing about the versions we release on that date, whether an existing app is 4.x or 5.x or a new app is 1.x, is just a release cycle number that is never seen in the package manager or .so names, it's a release management and marketing tool only. We may want to include the Release Date in the KAboutDialog though. For Frameworks I think if we number everything as 5.x (i.e. no bugfix number) and have monthly releases (I'd prefer two monthly to start with to stabilise the development and release process, but that's not my call), then that number will look different enough to a Plasma or Apps number with a more traditional 5.x.x bugfix version number (would that App bugfix release number then be 2015.01 or 2014.12.1?), especially after a year when you have KF 5.12 and Plasma 5.1.0 and KRandomApp 5.0.0. Even better would be Plasma 2.1.0 :-) Then there's also the implications for anyone trying to compare app versus plasma numbers: does an app released in 2015.06 as 5.1 need Plasma 2014.12 / 5.0 or Plasma 2015.06 / 5.1, or will it still work under 2015.12 / 5.2? Thing is, Plasma versus App version is irrelevant, any app should run under any version of Plasma, it's the KF version that matters, and that gap in numbers will get big enough to no longer matter. Three different numbering schemes would make the marketing easier though. Anyway, that's more a debate / ramble for the other threads :-) Cheers! John. >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
