Open Stack

+1 for this.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Adam Lawson wrote:
> > The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names
> > ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that
> > level of simplicity. I personally prefer Tristan's suggestion to keep it
> > as simple as possible. In a few years we'll run out of letters anyway.
>
> Part of the confusion here is that we are not naming "releases". We are
> naming release *cycles*. We are giving a name to a period of time,
> basically. In that period of time, various version numbers for various
> components will be released. Saying "Glance 12.0.0 was released in
> OpenStack 13 cycle" is not really helping.
>
> We won't run out of letters, because the names can cycle back to A
> (potentially using a new theme, away from "geographic features near
> where the corresponding design summit happened").
>
> So while we could technically name a release cycle "14", I feel it's a
> bit more difficult to rally around a number than a name. Also, numbers
> wouldn't really solve the perceived issues with names: numbers happen to
> also be culturally meaningful. You don't have a 13th floor in many US
> buildings. In China, building miss the 4th floor instead. 9 is feared in
> Japan. And don't talk about 39 to Afghans.
>
> I think "growing up" is accepting the pain that comes with picking a
> good name, rather than sidestepping the issue.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150711/9ebde110/attachment.html>