[development] code names for core releases?

[andrew morton]

On 9/19/06, Derek Wright <drupal at dwwright.net> wrote:
> in that case, ubuntu just has a stupid convention for version
> numbers.  if they're going to go that far (numbers based on year,
> which is sort of cool, and supports my partially-joking proposal for
> "major.patch" version numbers), they just screwed up what the 2nd
> part should be.  it shouldn't be the month (since you don't know that
> in advance).  it should be the # of releases they did that year.  so,
> the first release in a year is always "YY.1", and the 2nd release
> should be "YY.2".  problem solved.  no "catchy" [sic] code names
> required.

Unless the version is slated for November and slips into January, then
you've gone from 06.11 to 07.01 and you've got the same 4.8 to 5.0
problem. Code names are widely used because they solve a problem. This
whole argument is starting to sound like painting a bike shed[1].

I guess it's obvious I'm in favor of codenames,
andrew

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed