BlackBerry QNX, the member company I work for, has a product called Photon. I assume branding of the IDE itself will require more judicious trademark/name collision checks than the release names.
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Nick Boldt
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:24 AM
To: Eclipse Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Next Planning Council call : May2
Here's a crazy idea... Why not just call it Photon, since we're already calling it Photon for this train and the community/world will already expect there to be a Photon.1 Sept release, a Photon.2 Dec release, and a Photon.3 March release.
Then, instead of moving up to Quark or Queue or Quincy or Quoi? for the June 2019 release, we ... just ... call it...
Because, if you'll allow me to get all poetical for a minute... how can you have an eclipse without light? And how can you have light without a photon?
Anyway, my point is simplicity might be the best option here.
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m happy just branding it Eclipse IDE. Right now, it seems the market simply calls it “Eclipse”. Adding IDE is generic enough that it doesn’t disturb that and helps denote that
what Eclipse thing we are talking about, even if there are other IDEs. Using some other name will just create confusion.
Mind you, the reason I would pick a Q name and stick with it is to merge the branding of the simrel with the branding of the product in a smooth transition. Most people will think
it’s an Eclipse release that lasts forever and it will eventually lose that meaning and become the brand for the IDE. In theory…
Anyway, as Ed and Gunnar suggest, we should standardize the package names with Eclipse IDE. And, again, my main issue is what goes on the download page, in place of Eclipse Oxygen
(and soon Eclipse Photon). Using Eclipse IDE there is probably fine too.
Yes, I can see that guidance from the community would be expected. Looking at the package branding on https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/eclipse-packages/ we
see that many are "Eclipse IDE for *" but some are just "Eclipse for *" and those probably don't fit the current guidelines. Can you comment on their conformance to the current guidelines?
I thought we had agreement at one time to harmonize those to Eclipse IDE for ...? I've created bugs for the packages not implementing that scheme yet.
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
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.
Senior Software Engineer, RHCSA
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
IM: @nickboldt / @nboldt /
“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change” - Heraclitus