[development] code names for core releases?

[sime]

I have a Mac laptop. But frankly, I don't know whether it is Lynx, 
Panther, or Jaguar. And if I did, I don't know the running order of 
those releases - they actually make no sense to me. My mac runs OSX and 
X=10 and it's one more than OS9. The rest is marketing, and only matters 
in ad campaigns and plebian boasting.

This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for 
future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"?
It would contract to something cutesie like 4.7H, 5.0H of course.

For the record, I am /more than happy/ to specify the upcoming release 
when referring to HEAD, if asked nicely. ;-)

Simon


Khalid B wrote:

> On 9/19/06, Richard Archer <drupal.org at juggernaut.com.au> wrote:
>
>> At 7:59 PM -0400 19/9/06, Trae McCombs wrote:
>>
>> >Richard, please just go with a +1 or -1 for the idea.
>>
>> My -1 for names has already been posted.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> If we must use a name, HEAD is just fine.
>
>
> Richard, can I reiterate the arguments already made against this?
>
> Regarding HEAD/Trunk/cvs.
>
> HEAD is transient. Today's HEAD and not tomorrow's HEAD. If an issue
> or a documentation page refers to HEAD, what release exactly does this
> correspond to? Look at an issue from a year or two ago that refers to
> HEAD. Which release did the fix or the problem or the documented
> feature is in?
>
> Hard to say, and to find out you have to do extensive research.
>
> It would be easier to say 5.0, since it is the next release. But that 
> is not
> known until all the desired features go in, then a decision is made on
> whether this is a major or minor release.
>
> Who knows, maybe FormAPI 7.0 and thingamajigg will make it in the
> next release and it is not 5.1 anymore, rather 6.0 ...
>
> So, from the time 5.0 is branched till we decide on what the next number
> will be a code name (bikeshed, peaceNbananas, whatever) refers to
> "the next release" after 5.0. Once it gets a number we can refer to 
> either
> the number or the name since they are synonymous.
>
> Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
>
>
>