On 11/3/21 12:32 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:30:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> One thought; we could call version actual names, like Ubuntu and OSX do. The version numbers will be a minor detail in the documentation.
> 
> So you have "phobos", "deimos", then what?

But of course: Dejah Thoris, John Carter, Carthoris, Tara, Llana...

Bikeshed aside, named library versions may be more memorable but they have the downside that it's much harder to see two names and know which one is newer and/or current.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:40:30 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
> Bikeshed aside, named library versions may be more memorable but they have the downside that it's much harder to see two names and know which one is newer and/or current.

Yeah, the number is far more practical.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:40:30 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
> Bikeshed aside, named library versions may be more memorable but they have the downside that it's much harder to see two names and know which one is newer and/or current.

Make Astronomy 101 a prerequisite for learning the language and pick stars ordered by distance from Earth.

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 07:44:21PM +0000, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:40:30 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
> > Bikeshed aside, named library versions may be more memorable but they have the downside that it's much harder to see two names and know which one is newer and/or current.
> 
> Yeah, the number is far more practical.

I agree.  Debian GNU/Linux uses names for releases, and it's widely hated.  Even people like me, who don't hate it, find it very confusing because it's hard to tell which version is before or after which by looking at some arbitrarily-chosen names.

Let's just stick with numbers please.


T

-- 
Give a man a fish, and he eats once. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit forever.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:30:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2021-11-03 11:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
>> 
>> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>> 
>> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?
>> 
>
> One thought; we could call version actual names, like Ubuntu and OSX do. The version numbers will be a minor detail in the documentation.

Please don't do that. Picking good names is hard, and such naming complicates communication between developers (esp. those not fluent in language of choice, or not familiar with name origins). What if a given name is just unnatural to pronounce in your language? And how do you even maintain the ordering then?

To me, it'd be "better" to have std at top level, not std2 or std1005000220. So how about turning it around? During development, whatever next iteration is would be stdNext (or std.next). At release, it becomes the new std and the *previous* one gets a number (i.e. in current circumstance it'll become std.v1). The number may even be date of retirement.
This way it can be made as alias internally, so we can keep whatever the actual number is rolling, and still be able to break things that need breaking, and get to have easier to implement "std.vN".

This makes what's actually standard always, well, standard.

If someone wants or needs old stuff for some reason, it becomes THEIR responsibility to maintain their compatibility (i.e. s/<std>/std.vX/g), as it should be.

On 2021-11-03 15:44, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 19:40:30 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
>> Bikeshed aside, named library versions may be more memorable but they have the downside that it's much harder to see two names and know which one is newer and/or current.
> 
> Yeah, the number is far more practical.

Prolly we could have both so people could use either "io" or "std2".

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:37:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'd like to devise a robust version naming for Phobos. What is the best way?
>
> Currently it's std.v2 but I'm unclear how it goes from there. By semver we'd go with std.v2_0_1 and so on.
>
> Walter and others say it's better to have "std2" at top level instead of "std.v2" nested inside std. I confess I chose "std.v2" partially because it's easier to implement. But we can go either way. What would be best?

My pick is stdnext.stuff