3 ms·

As much as I'm a KDE fan, saying "developer advice" was to wait for 4.3 is very unhelpful (not to call it something else) It would have been much better if 4.3

As much as I'm a KDE fan, saying "developer advice" was to wait for 4.3 is very unhelpful (not to call it something else) It would have been much better if 4.3 was called 4.0 as it was supposed to be

Rinzler89 2y ago
>As much as I'm a KDE fan, saying "developer advice" was to wait for 4.3 is very unhelpful (not to call it something else) At least they were honest and upfront about it that it's shit and it's gonna be fixed later. Gnome's response in such a case would have usually been "it's not a bug, you're just holding it wrong"[1]. [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/3787 https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/3787
- raverbashing 2y ago
  Ouch, I think "holding it wrong" is an optimistic view, I would describe this as gaslighting really
bluGill 2y ago
That isn't a good option - KDE needed to promise to other developers here is a base you should start working on and it won't get drastic changes. There is no good answer to this problem.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  Yes The Linux kernel does this (or used to do at least) with odd version numbers. Or you could call it -dev, or -unstable version. Or call it 3.90-dev or something There are options.