[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] The Art of Project Release Naming


I can across an anecdote recently that illustrated the value of release version numbers. I was shopping for a cordless phone to replace my old 5.8 Ghz phone.  When I last bought a phone, the choice was between DECT 2.4 GHz and DECT 5.8 GHz, with the larger number generally being a better technology. This time around, there was a new option: DECT 6.0. After doing some research, I discovered that this new phone should actually be DECT 1.9 GHz, since that is the spectrum it operates on. However, the marketing guys thought that a smaller number would indicate an inferior product to customers, so they pulled the "6.0" number out of thin air. As a customer I confess I did immediately assume the higher number was the better technology. Although the conventions are slightly different, I think this is a perfect example of why a release "marketing number" can and sometimes should differ from an "engineering number". It also illustrates the value of a number over simple names (if they were DECT "zebra" and DECT "camel", a customer standing in the store wouldn't know which one to pick). All this to say that I think it would be valuable for us to describe some recommendations on release naming for projects. Some consistency across projects would be great.

John




Chris Aniszczyk <zx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/30/2009 06:47 PM

Please respond to
"eclipse.org-architecture-council"        <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
"eclipse.org-architecture-council" <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[eclipse.org-architecture-council] The Art of Project Release Naming





Esteemed members of the Eclipse AC,

How do you handle naming within your projects? There was some discussion that sparked my interested on the ECF mailing list recently...
     http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg02655.html

In essence, it boiled around versioning things properly and from that... what to call your project when referring to a release.

I have noticed in Galileo, projects like CDT seems to just increment a version each release. I don't know if the CDT team is doing this as a marketing thing only or actually revving bundle versions when they shouldn't be. I find it software engineering has unfortunately taught us to treat versions as a marketing number :(

In the end, the issue I want to bring up is if the AC thinks recommending a project release naming scheme is important?

Should we be consistent across projects and maybe recommend that projects name things to align with the train?
     CDT Galileo vs. CDT 6.0?
     ECF Helios vs. ECF 4.0?

Thoughts?

Cheers,

--
Chris Aniszczyk | EclipseSource Austin | +1 860 839 2465

http://twitter.com/eclipsesource | http://twitter.com/caniszczyk_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.