On the subject of naming the Dapper successor

[Jane Silber]

Hi -

>
> I do think the code names get wider attention than perhaps we 
> expected, and it's worth us having a think about how we get wider 
> adoption of the more formal release identifiers.
>
I think the code names are good and I think the current version 
numbering scheme is good. I agree with many of the objections that have 
been brought up against variants of 6.04.

I believe the solution is to use the code names and the version numbers 
appropriately in our speech, in our email, in the software, in the 
documentation.  Code names are intended to be development code names - 
i.e., it is Dapper before it is 6.04.  Once it is released, it is 6.04.  
I can point to endless examples (starting with the release 
announcements) where we misuse the codename thus reinforcing the name 
and its use well beyond its intended life time.  And of course I am 
guilty of this myself.  If we call it Dapper, then naturally that is 
what journalists, reviewers and the rest of the industry will call it; 
if we call it 6.04, they will tend to do so as well.

We should use the code names and version numbers as we want others to.  
No need to invent any new scheme - it will simply further complicate 
things.  Stay the course with what we have, use the names appropriately.

Cheers,
Jane