Names and Numbers for Ubuntu (was: On the subject...)

[Pete Ryland]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 04:22:15AM +0000, Paul Sladen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Daniel Robitaille wrote:
> > (note it's name), and follow its instructions: replace hoary by breezy
> > in synaptic, or source.list.
> 
> This is going to be easier if I believe it my own brain;  I think a good
> first step would be change the 'sources.list' configurations so that on the
> Preview (Beta) and release CDs they go out _only_ referring to the version
> number, eg:
> 
>   deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu 6.04 main restricted

Why not even before that?  If the release name is already known, and the
codenames are for pre-release reference only, why code them into the product
at all?

BTW, for what it's worth, I dislike the date-based version numbers too, but
would be happy with 2006.1, 2006.2, 2007.1, etc. (not 2006.a, 2006.b as that
could be interpreted as test releases).

Even better would be to keep the existing friendly codenames for
development, but on top of the version numbers, have slightly snazzier,
marketing-friendly (and likely geek-cringe-worthy) names for the releases,
like:

"Dapper Drake" development codename
"6.04" (or "2006.1" or whatever) official version number
but marketed and released as "Ubuntu Lx²"

This has the benefit of letting people feel cool using the codename for an
as-yet-unnamed product, and creating anticipation and buzz around the
official name when the product is released and being able to use a
currently-fashionable name.  After all, isn't this the purpose of codenames?

Pete