I agree with just a version number “2” would suffice. Most successful software uses just the version name and would communicate (to me anyways) that it’s just an upgrade and not a new “different” framework.
I’d rather simply calling it
Aurelia, I’ve always had problems detecting eclipse versions; thumbs up for @MaximBalaganskiy’s suggestion, use version for the legacy and older versions, and call the latest version
Aurelia. I understand that there was an overhaul for the vNext, but that’s still
Aurelia not another platform.
comes later this summer
I too am in support of simply following SemVer and calling it Aurelia 2. I do however love codenames and would love to see them attached to major version releases. I am not the creative sort to be coming up with any, but I dig the space theme that was present in the other thread: Aurelia 2+ code name
Just remembered one more argument against “Aurelia [version]”. To me, it sort of implies the need for “Aurelia [version+1]” soon. And if it’s not coming it would give an impression of a stale project.
Plus, it might be hard to sell to management. Opponents might take an opportunity to switch to something else, god forbid
Actually, it might be easier to sell to management. Aurelia as it stands has a reputation of that kid in the corner that knows it all yet newer gets the chicks. By bumping up the name, we clearly communicate that, Aurelia just had a well needed makeover.
Burelia. Then Curelia. Then Durandal.
Aurelia Two (or AU2 in short, pronounced as: “Hey, you too!?”)
‘Aurelia 2’ will eventually lead to ‘just Aurelia from now on’ - like it did with ng2.
Luna sounds like Eclipse versioning.
Why dont you name it Aurelius?
If (additional) codenames are desired, we could use colors as code names:
(skip the grey ones )
Hopping on the bandwagon. Aurelia 2.
Aurelia 2 (no “v”, no “.0”, no codename needed)
my two cents: Aurelia TNG <-- NOT!!!
KISS: Aurelia 2
Tell the marketing yups to just deal with it. Who cares if it ain’t sexy - it just works.
I have not been up to date with the great work you guys are doing for VNext. But if the next version of Aurelia is fully backward compatible, why not just called it Aurelia. I know this is not a good marketing strategy, but you can compensate with redesigning the logo instead and maybe a new slogan. The good thing about not changing the name is that it gives the impression that people using older version do not feel left behind.
Rob’s use of a word rather than a number fits Apple’s versioning of macOS which has been major v10 since 24-Mar-2001. The versions have always been incremented minor of the major v10.n, and included a name. Perhaps Aurelia could copy Apple (it could do worse), and use v1.n and a name. Or pick a major number that the team is happy to live with such as 7 since that’s the number of letters in Aurelia.
Assuming that there will be breaking changes sometime in the future, I’d say it’s prudent to at least number the versions if only to determine whether documentation / information is relevant.
An associated cool code name is also, well, cool.
Aurelia 2 or Aurelia 2.0 if you want to be more trendy (I joke of course).
Its simple, clear, evolutionary and we don’t need anything more than that.
I like “Aurelia”. I don’t think the 2 or any suffix is necessary. Just make people aware you follow Semver and communicate the breaking changes that way.