[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: koffice/karbon
From:       Nicolas Goutte <nicolasg () snafu ! de>
Date:       2004-09-16 17:44:45
Message-ID: 200409161944.45314.nicolasg () snafu ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 16 September 2004 15:40, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> On Thursday 16 September 2004 15:12, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > I do not care what is chosen but a version 0.1 since I do not know when
> > is not good.

Reverted to 0.1 and marked in koffice/lib/kofficecore/kofficeversion.h that 
Karbon's version number should not be updated before releases.

> >
> > Using KOFFICE_VERSION_STRING has the advantage that it is automatical for
> > the release manager. Other wise he has to add the correct change to
> > Karbon, which was never done until now. (For KOffice 1.3.3, it should be
> > at least Karbon 0.1.3)
> >
> > (My problem is that I got a question about a translation with Karbon 0.1
> > and I had to ask back which KOffice version is used.)
>
> And when trying to remove the KOffice version numbers for Karbon in KDE
> Bugs, I find that they are used. So what do we do now?

So I have removed all possible KOffice version number form the Karbon entry of 
KDE Bugs, remains: 1.2.90, 1.3, 1.3.1, which are used by bugs.

>

Have a nice day!

> (Nevertheless I have added 0.1 to the Karbon version numbers in KDE Bugs,
> as it is the version number reported by KOffice 1.3.x.)
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> > Have a nice day!
> >
> > On Thursday 16 September 2004 09:34, Rob Buis wrote:
> > > Hi Nicolas, Matt,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 07:19:19PM -0500, Matt Rogers
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 15 September 2004 09:10 am, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > > > CVS commit by goutte:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is perhaps time that Karbon gets another version number than 0.1
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this change is approrpriate. It should be left up to
> > > > the maintainer of the application to decide when his or her
> > > > application is worthy of such a major version number bump. I don't
> > > > know the state of the application itself, but I think it should be up
> > > > to Rob (or whoever the maintainer is) to make this change.
> > >
> > > I agree with Matt. I like the old system as it tells you something
> > > about maturity (i.e. the app is not too mature, do not expect too
> > > much). Also when there'll be improvements, I could really justify
> > > increasing the version number.
> > > So please revert to the old system.
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Rob.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > koffice-devel mailing list
> > > koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
> > > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > koffice-devel mailing list
> > koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> koffice-devel mailing list
> koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]