Proposal request for ideas on naming Fedora releases.

[Doug]

On 08/05/2012 12:32 AM, Richard Vickery wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com 
> <mailto:aph at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/01/2012 12:51 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>     > Am I the only person who thinks that the whole idea should be
>     dropped?
>     > I never, ever, heard anyone refer to Fedora-17 as Fedora Beefy
>     Miracle
>     > (if that is indeed the right name).
>
>     No, you're not the only one.  We discussed this at the time.
>     We took a vote.  Your side lost.
>
>     Andrew.
>
>
> I kind of like the idea of naming; it says that we're creative. Sure 
> there are some conservative types who think that names are not cool; 
> these people probably don't think much of Tux either. Then there are 
> the creative types, who number just as many, or in our case , more, 
> who think that naming the distributions is a better plan than not; and 
> we probably work better as a group because of it.
>
> Let's not think of it in terms of winning and losing, but of 
> collaboration and support for the betterment of the task at hand - 
> making us better as a team.
>
>
Well, here's my 2¢: I think naming is dumb, *because* there is no 
logical sequence to it--the reader does not know whether the named 
version is current, last year's, or 2005's.
Even one of the other distros, where the names are selected in 
alphabetical order, like hurricanes, is confusing, since the names are 
so weird and forgettable.  Call me a
stick-in-the-mud--you won't be the first--but I'd much prefer month and 
year for version identifiers, like PCLOS does.  That makes the sequence 
obvious to the most casual
of readers.

--doug

-- 
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. 
--A.M. Greeley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120807/8578b9bd/attachment.html>