Yep, that’s true, I hadn’t thought about that actually… And, as I programmed TimeShift a week or so ago, who knows, I might give it a bash after all(but when I feel confident enough, of course, i.e I’ll have to work myself up to it…)! 
1 Like
Exactly.
Imagine that everyone agreed to keep the branch stable with everything LTS-ish. Treating this strategy as an update policy for the branch could be more understandable for those who are in a hurry for new things. They could go to other branches if they didn’t agree with the update policy, which I believe, the way it is now, already works well for the majority of users.
In all fairness, I tend to agree with that point of view myself. Just my 2 cents 
Indeed. That’s why it’s called the stable branch, after all.
But as with anything in life, it is the loudmouths, the people that makes the most noise, who’s voice will be listened to…
Thanks guys, I was even able to downgrade my KDE 5.25.5 to 5.24.7 using your local repo idea ! Many thanks, I’m glad I could get back to the LTS version, using pacman -Suu instead of pacman -Syu…
Cheers,
Eddy
2 Likes
Yes, downgrading is no problem, just did it and it went without a hitch. Just use sudo pacman -Suu instead…
Cheers,
Eddy
3 Likes
To be fair, it was @philm’s idea, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without him building the packages on the GitHub server first. 
3 Likes
wrong, see my previous post.
I never disagreed with you. Who needs to take responsibility isn’t what I’m saying.
I’m merely pointed out that whoever does the listening always listens to the loudest voice, the one that makes the biggest impact:
If the loudest voice says stability comes first over the latest and greatest, that’s more than alright.
That’s why a well-defined public policy which explains some misconceptions such as “Manjaro only holds packages for X days” should be considered and put in place.
Many users don’t grasp the entire concept of testing.
Updated successfully. Thanks.
1 Like
I would suggest a pacman -Syuu for those going back from Plasma 5.25-5.26
PS: I was suggesting it was change in the installation post I replied to.
3 Likes
I updated to the local 5.24.7 and it was very easy, thanks!
But I need to say it didn’t solve my issue. Plasma is still mixing up activities and locking everything. Now I don’t have any idea what is the problem anymore.
1 Like
I have started this post and I was so surprised by the amount of people concerned.
for me, stability of software is key.
I am leaving KDE desktop; end of the story.
1 Like
Could somone help me with downgrading from Plasma 5.26.4? I follow the procedures described by Aragorn except running sudo pacman -Syuu at the end. I can see the packages of Plasma 5.24.7 which are going to be installed, but then I get pacman error:
“FILENAME exists in filesystem” with enumeration of a dozen of files from /usr/share/sounds belonging to oxygen-sounds package.
Well… moving those files into a bakup dir helped. I am on Plasma 5.24.7 now! Thanks!
2 Likes
As KDE Plasma approaches 5.27.x “stable”, I am pondering on commenting out the ignore = plasma line from
pamac.conf
to upgrade from 5.24.7 to the latest version.
Is that all I need to do?
And… thoughts?
1 Like
I’ve been pondering the same thing, albeit that I don’t have an ignore on Plasma. I’ve simply added the stanza to the 5.24.7 repo that @philm set up.
2 Likes
I wonder if we need to start a whole new thread to discuss this. ?
2 Likes
Might be a good idea.
2 Likes