PackageMerging examples out of date?

[s-makin]

The PackageMerging.md page uses Cosmic and Disco in the examples throughout - at one point it even says "Disco is not available yet at time of writing", which is why I first noticed this. This makes the entire page feel out of date and neglected.

I think that if it's possible, these examples should be made as generic as possible (or at least brought up to date with e.g. Jammy/Focal).

[mitchdz]

Long live Cosmic!

[mitchdz]

I think the package version names being out of date is fine-ish, as long as the commands and response from commands still match. Otherwise, the package will be out of date each and every cycle.

However, if we make it a goal to always keep the version names up to date that would be a good commit for first-time contributors to re-run the commands with the new versions perhaps?

[mirespace]

What about a task to update it - across all the documents? - at the beginning of a cycle?

Could we do it "automagically" with Mark Down? Setting a variable ... mmm , I think we don't automatically generate the UMH

[cpaelzer]

The examples refer to particular versions and git commits, so it is not a "search & replace" action.
As only in e.g. cosmic was postfix on 3.3.0-1ubuntu1 and had a fix with hash ...

So really, there is no drawback in those examples referring to "old" releases unless if they are wrong.
And they are not.
Therefore rewriting just to have newer release names is quite some effort (to get the new versions and cases) for a low gain, so I'd suggest to close this as won't fix @s-makin