I vote to use contributorsā names 
Bingo ! you won, and have my full vote/agreement on that one !
If you want to use real names, why not real cloud names? Starting with A: e.g Nextcloud Altocumulus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altocumulus_cloud
nice idea but I think normal people can not remember several cloud names 
Or like me, they can not spell it
Names should be something normal end users can remember to and identify the nextcloud version that is meant.
Just to make sure: we are not talking about āsemantic versioningā only here. Each Version will have normal numbering (whereever that starts is another discussion: 1.0 vs. 9,0) and an expression or name in addition
BTW: this also adds another possibility Iād like to elaborate in a few lines.
As most of you will know, skipping major versions for upgrades is not supported . While I donāt know, if that will be persistent, there was quite some stir up in the past, when people did not understand why they cannot upgrade 8.0 to 8.2 WITHOUT moving to 8.1 before.
in addition, we could use the semantic versioning to indicate āupgradibilityā supported: as long as the semantic name remains the same, upgrading is no hassle, if it changes, one has to spend second thoughts.
Accoridngly semantic versioning for the recent versions of owncloud could have looked like this (examples are easier to understand than my scribbles, I guess ;-):
7.0.0 - Gandolfo
7.1.0 - Gandolfo
8.0.0 - Versailles
8.0.13 - Versailles
8.1.0. - Windsor
8.1.5 - Windsor
8.1.8 - Windsor
8.2.0 - Neuschwanstein
8.2.5 - Neuschwanstein
9.0.0 - Buckingham
9.0.2 - Buckingham
(Attention: Iām obiviously NOT following the A-Z rule - I rather chose some well known castles instead for a start )
John
I would only name major releases, so 9.0.0 Helms Klamm, 10.0.0 Neuschwanstein ā¦ and follow the alphabet, so end users could follow which castle comes after another.
It was a joke. Ubuntu LTS, Debian, Android, OS X, Fedora (?) donāt push new major versions 3 times a year, and if you use any of them, do you remember the last 3 editions by name?
If nextcloud sticks to a support cycle of 18 months and pushes 3 major version each year that will be a nightmare to support (people mix them up, you have to remember the names, ā¦). Or you ask people to use the version number but then, why using names in the first place?
Anyone using Wordpress? They use version numbers and names, currently there are 4 supported versions (4.2 - 4.5), anyone knows them by heart? At least the one used on the nextcloud-webpage?
where is your sarcasm label?
I just use android and fedora and yes I remember more than 3 of their last names :3
In Android most people know the version names because everybody loves sweets.
In your first sentence you say no one will remember the name of major releases and in the following sentence you say all people will just use the release name. Your arguments negate themselves.
Iām not stubborn and want that naming no matter what. But there is just one argument against the idea. That argument is that people just use the name for support purposes. This is just an assumption because there are no reference projects which release several major versions a year and use naming + numbering for versioning.
I donāt see names and version numbers as being exclusive. My assumption is that both are used, eg. Nextcloud 10 Windsor
1 Like
ā¦ and you may ends-up with 2 or 3 āwindsorā versions that are not similarā¦ like @tflidd said,[quote=ātflidd, post:67, topic:45ā]
that will be a nightmare to support (people mix them up, you have to remember the names, ā¦)
[/quote]
support : whatās your version ?
Toto : my version is "windsor"
support : yes, but tell me wich "windsor"
Toto : I donāt know, i have "windsor"
etc. etc.
in that case you can also say
support : whatās your version ?
Toto : my version is "10"
support : yes, but tell me wich "10"
Toto : I donāt know, i have "10"
etc. etc.
As I said, there are just assumptions about what could happen. I mean if that happens, we can discard the naming verioning and only use numbers.
No, because version should be accordingly of this form : 10.x.x-x
(itās not just āassumptionsā, believe me, i have already supported the ānamesā nightmareā¦) 
Anyway, Version numbers should be mandatory, names doesnāt bring anything , just cosmetics and confusion.
While numbers are more precise to people regularly working with the code, my feeling is that names are far more memorable to people who arenāt working on the code than point numbers.
People are far more likely to forget and get mixed up whether theyāre running 10.2 or 10.3 than whether theyāre running Windsor or Knox. The two numbers are just much more similar sounding. Using both though seems to get as close as we can to the benefits of both systems.
For version numbers, we need to deal with our heritage to some degree. Thus we need to keep the a.b.c[.d] scheme, to keep updates working and also keep app requirement definitions working. It does not block us however to go directly from 9 to 10 with the next major release.
So while we need to keep the structure as is with 9, and keep the second number simply 0, in a future major release we will have the chance to go fully semantic.
As for whether a name should be added or not there does not seem to be a consensus, so we keep the current state for now (9 release).
From my understanding, the consensus up to now was: (I donāt care if you) Do semantic versioning or not, but DO keep / stick to numbers.
BTW, just a thought: if you consider the next (first) version to be NC 10 instead of NC 9 as you have hinted in the first paragraph (chances are, I misread you, though 
) you could make use of MSās abandoned Windows 10/One reasoning, move ābackā to NC 1 (one) and start from scratchā¦
Hope my scribbles havenāt been to obfuscating now
Names sound nice in the first place but it really depends on how many are there a year. If there are too much it starts get messy. Sure, names are easier to recognize than numbers, many names make it hard to remember the order and if you are new/not familiar with the release plans it is not possible to recognize the order anyway.
Numbers are clear and exact. The problem is that as @Bugsbane said its hard to remember which version you are currently on. (I think Iām currently on OC 8.2.5 but Iām not sure, too much updates in the last weeks/months).
But not only the users are to consider, but also the team is important. They have to work with the version convention. SO itās better to take some time and think about it. I started to work on a growing software project and we had to change our version scheme 2 time since then.
Personally I wouldnāt get hung up on one or the other but do both like Ubuntu does (only with release names that are better! 
)
1 Like