Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>]

On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with '2021',
> > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > >
> > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement of
> > > the traditional name maybe?
> > >
> > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > >
> > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', etc.,
> > > reasonably appealing...
> >
> > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > why we're upgrading the machines.
> >
> > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> 
> ++

I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
trixie? How do you know?

But I can't see what's wrong with codenames. It's not just a "tradition",
it's standard practice in most fields of endeavour. You slap a name on
a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).

You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?
There are about three or four in current use at any one time. (And the
release numbers might be monotonic, but they're not sequential, so
memorizing them would be just as tricky.)

Cheers,
David.