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.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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.
7 Likes
I vote for Aurelia vBoatyMcBoatFace.
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
Aurelia 2 is good choice
2 Likes
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 
6 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
2 Likes
What about similar to the Wordpress way? Number + something else.
Like books:
Aurelia 2 - “The Great Gatsby”
Aurelia 3 - “Moby Dick”
Aurelia 4 - “Gone With the Wind”
Like Volcanoes:
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”
2 Likes
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”.
Cause:
- 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 
1 Like
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?
1 Like
+1 for KISS and just name it 2.0, IMO this would sell well to management, a next version indicates the project is under active development and has reached a certain maturity (I have rarely used a V1 framework as stable and mature as Aurelia, but knowing this and convincing upper management of this is a whole other thing).
I’m all in for codenames, and I really liked Durandal (both the name and framework), so why not keep the symbolic link between these 2 frameworks and name each vNext as a mythic sword?
2 Likes
Would GoT sword names count as well 
3 Likes
Don’t forget lotr swords.
3 Likes
Well then it should be He Man’s Sword of Power
1 Like
Thanks everyone for all the great feedback here. I just wanted to chime in and call out two things:
- The consensus here seems to be that we should name vNext as “Aurelia 2”. This was what the core team had discussed independently, so it seems the core team and community are pretty well in alignment here. As a result, we’re fairly well decided to go with that. (It’s possible that at some point down the line we could drop the “2” and just go back to Aurelia. I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. It’s mostly a marketing and search thing at that point.)
- We’re not 100% decided one way or the other regarding using an additional code name to mark versions, milestones, etc. Lots of great ideas here on this. (Obviously, I’m partial to sword stuff, given my history.) We’ll continue to ponder this detail and will continue to monitor this channel for ideas about that.
Thank you again everyone for jumping in and providing your thoughts!
15 Likes
Just keep it as Aurelia. By the time you decide on a name and people have gotten used to it, you’ll need to change it again. If you have to add the version fine, but keep it aligned with the real versions. Just don’t do something like Aurelia 2 V1.0. Why? Because that’s stupid. Period. If I see 2.1.0 in someone’s source, I don’t really want to have to look up whether that’s 2.1.0 in Aurelia 1 or Aurelia 2 (and I wouldn’t want to have to explain it if someone looks at my source).
Internal codenames, use whatever you like. But in the public eye, take a look at jQuery, for example. After all these years, it’s still just jQuery. Not jQuery Bedrock, jQuery TopSoil, or jQuery Atmosphere Edition.
Finally, avoiding name changes keeps your marketing and branding simple. If you have trademark issues then do what ye must, but since “Aurelia” is part of the equation still, I’m assuming TM isn’t the issue.
5 Likes
How about Aurelia Plus?
How about Aurelia Plus Plus? Somebody used that trick once, last century if I remember correctly 
I don’t particularly have a preference for Aurelia vNext. You can call them whatever, just don’t call them Kintsugi. I’m gonna start a Next / Nuxt equiv with Aurelia under that name
3 Likes