Adam Lawson wrote: > The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names > ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that > level of simplicity. I personally prefer Tristan's suggestion to keep it > as simple as possible. In a few years we'll run out of letters anyway.
Part of the confusion here is that we are not naming "releases". We are naming release *cycles*. We are giving a name to a period of time, basically. In that period of time, various version numbers for various components will be released. Saying "Glance 12.0.0 was released in OpenStack 13 cycle" is not really helping. We won't run out of letters, because the names can cycle back to A (potentially using a new theme, away from "geographic features near where the corresponding design summit happened"). So while we could technically name a release cycle "14", I feel it's a bit more difficult to rally around a number than a name. Also, numbers wouldn't really solve the perceived issues with names: numbers happen to also be culturally meaningful. You don't have a 13th floor in many US buildings. In China, building miss the 4th floor instead. 9 is feared in Japan. And don't talk about 39 to Afghans. I think "growing up" is accepting the pain that comes with picking a good name, rather than sidestepping the issue. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
