How should we handle tags for the various versions of Android? For Android 2.2, we have have three different tags. Android-2.2, Froyo, and 2.2. Android-2.2 is by far the most popular, next followed up by Froyo. Should we try and merge these tags to be something like Android-2.2-Froyo or 2.2-Froyo?

6 Answers 6


Pulling this out of comments so it can receive proper votes, if it's the way to go: [version-codename]



This avoids the overly-verbose "android" in the tag, and it makes the tag findable with the auto-complete if you start typing either the version number or the codename.

  • 1
    This sounds good to me. If the community agrees, I'll start work on the tags.
    – Bryan Denny Mod
    Sep 23, 2010 at 15:14
  • 1
    Sounds like the way to go. Sep 24, 2010 at 16:05
  • 4
    Someone should make all the other possibilities into synonyms ie. Android-2.1, 2.1, Eclair, version2.1, etc.
    – Adam
    Oct 7, 2010 at 23:57
  • What about minor versions, such as 2.2.1-Froyo? In my opinion they could be merged with the major version tags.
    – onik
    Dec 31, 2010 at 6:41

My two cents:

The dessert names of the versions is fun and all, but most of your normal users aren't going to have a clue as to what it means. Further, it doesn't appear on the phone, while the version number does.

So, at best, our dessert names should only be synonyms.

I wonder if the naked [2.2] isn't a bit too esoteric. But, then [android 2.2] and [version 2.2] are redundant if clearer. (The former also has the added benefit that if there were a merger in the future, or Android forked into multiple product paths, no global renames would be required. That's probably not something we should be worrying about, though.)

So, I say [<version number>], with [<dessert codename>] and [android-<version number>] as synonyms.

Update: The community isn't playing along.

android-2.2 x 50

2.2-froyo x 24

froyo x 6

2.2 x 1

1.5-cupcake x 3

android-1.5 x 2

android-2.1 x 34

2.1-eclair x 8

2.5-gingerbread x 1 (which is just plain wrong; everything I've seen indicates Gingerbread will be 3.0, except for this, which implies that Gingerbread might be 2.3)

I still stand by my suggestion of raw version numbers (e.g., 2.2) as best, with tags in the style of android-2.2 as second best. Not everyone knows about the dessert names, and if Google stops naming their versions that way it's not going to make any sense. Tags based on the official names is more future-proof.

  • Al, we can actually do a mass tag merge as moderators and then create synonyms from all of the removed tags to the [version]-[codename] tag. Since the codenames are pretty popular in usage, I still feel that the [version]-[codename] is best approach to go since it drops the redundant [android] tag and contains both the version number and name making it pretty clear.
    – Bryan Denny Mod
    Oct 26, 2010 at 18:33
  • I disagree that it makes things clear. However, I'm on board to do it your way. I think, however, that in the future we're going to need to revisit this. At the very least we're going to want good, clear, tag wikis.
    – ale
    Oct 26, 2010 at 18:38
  • @Bryan: Here's another wrinkle: How to handle 2.0. It shares the same codename with 2.1; they were both part of "Eclair". So, now we're going to have 2.0-eclair and 2.1-eclair?
    – ale
    Oct 28, 2010 at 19:58
  • @Al Wasn't 2.0 completely replaced by 2.1? As in it is now obsolete according to: developer.android.com/intl/de/resources/dashboard/…
    – Bryan Denny Mod
    Oct 28, 2010 at 20:06
  • Sure, but we had at least one question on here about a device with Android 2.0 on it.
    – ale
    Oct 28, 2010 at 20:08
  • Further, what about Android 2.0.1, which followed 2.0 rather quickly, and Android 2.2.1, which is currently live on several flavors of phone?
    – ale
    Oct 29, 2010 at 0:19
  • @Al I think those minor version would still fall under their major version (2.2). Not sure how to handle the 2.0 since that OS version is obsolete (0.1% of all Android devices)
    – Bryan Denny Mod
    Oct 29, 2010 at 14:09
  • That's fine. I just think that this naming convention is going to come back and bite us. What we have works for now.
    – ale
    Oct 29, 2010 at 15:14
  • Looks like Google have just confirmed that Honeycomb will be 3.0 googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/01/…
    – GAThrawn
    Jan 7, 2011 at 0:20

This is a dedicated android site. Any tag that would NOT have "android" in it is on the wrong site. Any tag that explicitly has "android" in it is redundant.

As an Android site, the un-qualified version# of Android is a legitimate tag. As an Android site, the un-qualified version# of a random application is not a legitimate tag (and would only be so on a site dedicated to that application).

[2.2] or [Froyo] s/b fine.


I would say [Android-2.2] or [2.2]. I have no idea what most of the code names refer to, and the phones specs I see online only give the version number, not the code name.

I use a phone with android 1.5 - I know it is 1.5, I don't know what variety of food I would refer to it by. And you could tell me in the comments, but I think most new-ish users would have no idea.


I say use the name of the build: Donut, Eclair, Froyo... Merge them all into this.

The number isn't bad but it may be confused with other app version names, or other relevant numbers.

Using "Android-2.2" is pure redundant silliness. Why should we have to specify that we are talking about "Android" on the "Android Enthusiasts" StackExchange?

  • 1
    Maybe Froyo-2.2, etc.? Some people may know the Android version # but not the code name for it (despite the fact that they are named alphabetically).
    – Bryan Denny Mod
    Sep 19, 2010 at 18:35
  • 4
    I don't necessarily think "Android-2.2" is redundant, because it specifies that we're talking specifically about the Android operating system, not just an app or function of android phones. Sep 20, 2010 at 17:01
  • Good points but I still think that having "Android" in the tag isn't necessary. The site is about "Android" so it's in a class of it's own. There is nothing else in this site that would be on the level of "Android" in the taxonomy. Apps however should be tagged with the name of the app in the version tag because there are numerous possibilities on the same level. I still vote for Froyo but if no one likes the dessert names then my second choice is 2.2.
    – Matt
    Sep 20, 2010 at 21:04
  • 2
    What about 2.2-Froyo? The tag field searches based on what you type, and this will be found by typing either "2.2" or "froyo", and help prevent redundant tags again in the future. Sep 20, 2010 at 21:29
  • I like the hyphenated version-codename (or codename-version) myself -- It covers the two unique identifiers of each version and excludes any other redundant information.
    – Saiboogu
    Sep 22, 2010 at 16:59

I like "Android-2.2-Froyo". "Android" because there may be tags related to specific app versions; both "2.2" and "Froyo" because not everyone knows the code names (ref at least one question already asked on that topic).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .