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.
I vote for Aurelia vBoatyMcBoatFace.
I was leaning toward Aurelia 2.0, just because it shows that there is a maturation of the framework and its moving forward.
But the more I think about it, the 2.0 is really unnecessary and sticking with Aurelia alone and when needed call out the Semver as noted by @jkeam and others.
Aurelia 2 is good choice
I’d also strongly prefer the name to simply be Aurelia 2.
It’s simple and logical, and it’s a versioning strategy that works for future versions too.
There are few things more annoying than having to decode codenames.
More importantly though, while I certainly appreciate the attention given to preserving compatibility between releases of the current Aurelia version, I also feel that it has held the framework, and by extension my own work, back a lot.
Breaking changes are necessary to move foreward, and when something just doesn’t work well enough, the cost of not making a breaking change can be much higher than the cost of just taking the hit and fixing things. Breaking changes are generally not a problem, as long as they are well documented in the release notes, and don’t change the core architecture of the framework.
For vNext, I therefore strongly recommend that you adopt a new approach to versioning, similar to the Angular versioning strategy. If there’s years between major versions, and thus between much needed fixes and improvements, then this framework will, eventually, loose its supporters - and I’d hate to see that happen, as this is by far the best frontend framework in existence today
I vote for version numbers when I ask for them.
Keep the name Aurelia as is.
Previous releases should be referenced by version number.
Echo & log the version that’s executing and move on.
I know this makes it harder during the transition phase – ex:which Aurelia am I using now? – but that time doesn’t last as long as time between transitions.
I’m sure the 2.x au cmdLine tool will be able to run/build a 1.0 project - so really, what’s it matter.
As long as there’s no massive breaking changes, I think Aurelia should stay Aurelia (and when there are massive breaking changes, I’d prefer an actual rename as apposed to the confusion of trying to search for how-to’s and ending up with false information) Keeping version numbers out of the actual name should be the goal.
People will think “Aurelia 2? What changed/broke that they felt lead to change the name? Will my code break now?” There’d surely be some who go back to see what’s new, but I think getting the news out there, that there is a nice update, would bring more positive attention, in the end.
As it is, though, people should probably start looking at their old tutorials and update the ones that don’t follow best practices or are flat obsolete. Keeping Aurelia beginner-friendly and easily-accessible should be a top priority.
What about similar to the Wordpress way? Number + something else.
Aurelia 2 - “The Great Gatsby”
Aurelia 3 - “Moby Dick”
Aurelia 4 - “Gone With the Wind”
Aurelia 2 - “Stromboli”
Aurelia 3 - “Mauna Loa”
Aurelia 4 - “Krakatau”
Like movie quotes:
Aurelia 2 - “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”
Aurelia 3 - “Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore”
Aurelia 4 - “E.T. phone home”
My vote goes to Aurelia 2, because it’s easier when we’re talking versioning later on, esp when moving forward.
However, I’m very keen on it having a “name” or “code name”.
- My inner child likes it
- Search-ability, Aurelia is already hard enough. Being able to tell content apart between old and new articles will be much harder without a name.
As for the name I like pop culture and other references like every other nerd, however it will probably need to be something very generic as we don’t want the be sued for copyright infringement
According to Behind the name Aurelia is the feminine form of aurelius, meaning golden, or gilded… so we could use versioning and codes of things that can be gilded… eg:
Aurelia 2 - “Lily” … or is that over embellished?