# Quick poll: Am I the only one who wants matching ROS 2 & Gazebo names?

**URL:** <https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523>\
**Category:** Gazebo Ideas\
**Created:** [February 15, 2026, 1:47pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523 "2026-02-15T13:47:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ayrton-Sheng](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/ayrton-sheng/32/32193_2.png) [@Ayrton-Sheng](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/Ayrton-Sheng)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2026, 1:47pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523/1 "2026-02-15T13:47:26Z")

</div>

Hey everyone!

This might seem like a minor detail, but it’s something I’ve noticed while setting up environments.

Why don’t ROS 2 and Gazebo share the same alphabetical codenames? For example, ROS 2 Humble (H) uses Gazebo Fortress (F). It feels a bit counterintuitive, especially for new users.

My thought:

Wouldn’t it be easier if they matched (like Humble Harmonic)? It would simplify remembering which versions go together.

My guess:

I assume the dev team locks the Gazebo version based on what’s stable at release time, rather than picking a name that matches the alphabet. But I’m curious—am I missing a technical reason?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![peci1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/peci1/32/10145_2.png) [@peci1](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/peci1)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2026, 3:42pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523/2 "2026-02-15T15:42:07Z")

</div>

> [@Ayrton-Sheng](#):
>
> am I missing a technical reason?

Yes. The LTS releases are currently not aligned (Gazebo has odd years, ROS has even years). But there was discussion about aligning them: [Public view of Open Source Robotics Foundation | Zulip team chat](https://openrobotics.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/526046-Gazebo-PMC-.28Restricted-posting.29)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ayrton-Sheng](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/ayrton-sheng/32/32193_2.png) [@Ayrton-Sheng](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/Ayrton-Sheng)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2026, 9:09am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523/3 "2026-02-16T09:09:38Z")

</div>

Since each Gazebo release is supported by the next ROS distribution released the following May, why not have the Gazebo version released in a given year use a codename whose initial letter matches that of the ROS distribution to be released the following year—thereby creating a clear naming correspondence that reflects their support relationship?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![peci1](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/peci1/32/10145_2.png) [@peci1](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/peci1)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2026, 10:02pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/quick-poll-am-i-the-only-one-who-wants-matching-ros-2-gazebo-names/52523/4 "2026-02-23T22:02:34Z")

</div>

See [Proposal for a new Gazebo Release Cadence](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/proposal-for-a-new-gazebo-release-cadence/52650) .