Only left, writers of articles to use them ;d

@jasnell #317 (comment)

Ok, so it's still an open discussion then. Rather than committing to these names for the next number of years, I'd rather we just come up with a better scheme now.

As I noted elsewhere #291 lordie, what is the issue now?

Other than Axel's legitimate concern #317 (comment) (gold does have unique connotations) the list is toasty.

More importantly, you'll be done. Done. A not-that-consequential item will actually be resolved, and you can then move on to the what-will-we-ultimately-do-about-buffer-constructor issue.

Rather than committing to these names for the next number of years, I'd rather we just come up with a better scheme now.

@jasnell Those two options are not mutually exclusive. Sure, let's come up with a better naming scheme. But in the meantime, let's have a list of names that don't need to be debated until that new scheme comes. Approve this, and you still don't have to debate names for individual releases even if conversation about whether the theme should be Futurama characters or Simpsons characters drags on for 7 years.

Literally. You won't need a new theme until 2025. But if you manage to select a new theme before 10.x, then great. You can throw this out at that time.

@shelleyp By the way, I updated Gold to Gaiilium as suggested by @rauschma in #317.

@Trott ... I'll look at this more tomorrow after the holiday. We're still 23 days out from the release so there's no reason to rush.

@Trott ... I'll look at this more tomorrow after the holiday. We're still 23 days out from the release so there's no reason to rush.

@jasnell Waiting a day is no big deal, and I'd rather get more @nodejs/release approvals anyway. But please let us not give even the appearance of slow-walking this.

We all complain (correctly) that it is impossible to keep track of everything that goes on across the nodejs project issue trackers. This is an opportunity to short-circuit predictable endless low-value bike-shedding. Failure to do this means needlessly exacerbating the very problem we presumably are interested in addressing.

I may have missed this part of the discussion, but are you intentionally skipping J?

That might confuse users who don’t know the complete list of code names.

@styfle There are no chemical element names that start with J, not in English at least. (Or not yet... perhaps someone will discover/name something by 2023 😄)

@drewfish Yes I am aware of the issue.

But perhaps this PR should end at Iron and then we can bikeshed J at a future date. And it is possible something will be discovered in that time.

@styfle I agree on not assuming we'll skip J so I took out the K and L names. Now the list will get us out "only" 5 years to 2023.

Hmmm...unfortunately @nodejs/release does not in fact contain everyone listed in the README as a member. (In fact, it is less than half the people listed!) Despite what the README says to the contrary, it looks like the full membership (or at least something closer to it) is in @nodejs/lts.

So, uh: @nodejs/lts PTAL.

Hmmm...my attempt to @-mention @nodejs/lts failed. Preview tells me this one will succeed. So trying again...

@nodejs/lts PTAL

I am not a member of the Releases WG, but +1 from me. Thanks for taking the needed initiative here, @Trott ❤️

+1 on this, let's just have a set of names we can default to, then if there's ever enough of an agreement to change the names then we can do that (be it next week or in 4 years).

FWIW I think the best text name for Node 10.x is Ten, but that's just me 😁 .

However I think if we're going to have this it should be machine readable, so we can use it for backporting.

@gibfahn nvm reads it from the index.tab on nodejs.org/dist, is that not what you mean by machine readable?

@gibfahn nvm reads it from the index.tab on nodejs.org/dist, is that not what you mean by machine readable?

That's fine, but I'm talking about having a tool for backporting that works out that the first LTS version of Node 8 (8.6.0 or whatever) should be called Node Carbon for creating the release, so it can't rely on that page.

I'm fine with that format though.

machine readable

Isn't the codename already a field in https://github.com/nodejs/Release/blob/master/schedule.json ? Could we just add values to that (marked tentative)?

Isn't the codename already a field in /schedule.json@master ? Could we just add values to that (marked tentative)?

SGTM

Someone land this! (I'm not a member of the working group so I'm not going to do it because that would be rude.)

@srl295 Added the links you requested. Everyone else might want to review. Also: Someone please land this! 😄