12 Feb
2014
12 Feb
'14
10:56 p.m.
On Wednesday 12 of February 2014 20:30:37 David C. Rankin wrote:
I have never been a fan of R14 for a name because I
saw no continuity or
relationship between 3.5.13 and R14. I saw far more logic in 3.5.14 (but
that does not follow standards since there are breaks in compatibility) so
3.6.0 made more since to me. And... knowing there was never a KDE 3.6 it
did more than enough to signify a break/change with KDE while continuing
the traditional look an feel. But, being a team player, I'll go with
R14.0.0 even though package managers never like package versions that start
with a 'letter'.....
trinity-R14.0.0-1.i686.tar.xz, though
tde-R14.0.0-1.i686.tar.xz speaks volumes more about what the desktop is and
where it came from.
tde-3.6.0-1.i686.tar.xz says it all...
Like I said, for discussion purposes, this is what logic says to me. That
doesn't mean something else is more/less wrong.
For this I have a simple explanations:
1) The terms "Trinity"/"TDE" is to replace term "KDE 3.5"
=> there is no need
to repeat "3.5." in the version numbers. Therefore, the after "13"
followed "14".
2) With numbering "3.5.x" remains for us little room for detailed numbers.
Therefore, we temporarily created 3.5.13.x. With version 14, so we can get
back to three numbers.
3) Release "14" underwent a significant profiling own identity - many
renaming, own XDG name,... Therefore, now gets its own "minor"
and "micro/patch" versioning.
For these reasons, numbering 14.x.y feels good for me. The letter 'R' can be
omitted in the version of the packages. Moreover, on some distributions
package version MUST start with a number, not a letter. Therefore I do not
expect use the letter 'R' in the version of the packages, in the version of
source tarballs, neither in GIT tag.
Slavek
--