RE: [eclipse-dev] Planning Meeting Notes - Nov 8, 2006

["Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> As long as we don't start repeating the tactic Sun took with Java and
> Solaris, of "Eclipse 3 Release 6" or whatever.  Anything but that :-@

I agree the Sun and Java naming convention is something we should not try to
emulate.  :-)

> It seems that every component-based software product hits this naming
> issue, somewhere midway through its 2.x or 3.x versions.  Each possible
> scheme has its flaws.  The main flaw with the "Version 2006" scheme is
> that if you don't release every year, your current version starts
> looking pretty stale; but that's not much of a problem for Eclipse,
> although perhaps it would be for vendors building products on top of
> Eclipse.  (Another flaw is that it feels Microsoft-ish.)

Yup, this is not an uncommon problem.   I took a look at OS X.  They seem to
use a mixture.  Their latest release seems to be called Mac OS X 10.4.6 but
is also known as the Mac OS X Tiger.  I am not Mac expert so I may have
misunderstood their web site.