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
--