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

[Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>]

While an entertaining discussion, I think it really is too late to change
the name/version numbers for 2007. Europa/CDT 4.0/Eclipse 3.3/and I'm sure
others are well under way and any change now would just lead to confusion.
We can certainly discuss what to call the thing we will be releasing in
2008.

As for the spash screen, all vendors I know redistributing Eclipse replace
the spash screen and call it based on their own product branding/versioning.
The Eclipse component version numbers really become hidden for the most part
at that point.

For the splash screen from Eclipse.org version of Eclipse, I don't think it
matters too much whether you call it 3.3 or Europa. Calling it Europa does
show that, while the Platform is important, it isn't the center of the
universe :). But, I do find the splash screen calling 3.3Mx "3.2" a bit
confusing, though...

Doug Schaefer
QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Burnette
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:30 AM
> To: General development mailing list of the Eclipse project.
> Subject: RE: [eclipse-dev] Planning Meeting Notes - Nov 8, 2006
> 
> I think you should call the upcoming release of the Eclipse SDK "Version
> 4.0" or perhaps "Version 4" instead of 3.3. Then the one in 2008 should be
> "Version 5", and so forth. You can call its maintenance release "Version
> 4.1". There's no technical reason NOT to do this because when it comes to
> checking version number ranges (major vs. minor, breaking vs. non-
> breaking, etc.), those checks are done with the plug-in version numbers,
> not the SDK version number. Also, it would quickly get the Eclipse SDK
> version number out of the way of all the plug-in version numbers, which
> for the most part were grandfathered to start at 3.something.
> 
> I don't particularly like the year idea because then the release would
> have 3 names: a version number, a year, and a release train name. Two is
> confusing enough.
> 
> Also I don't think referring to the Eclipse SDK as "Europa" is a good idea
> for several reasons. For one thing, it still needs a number somewhere.
> There are plenty of people who don't refer to 3.2 as Callisto (we don't,
> for example, because employees are supposed to get Eclipse from an
> internal site and not an external "Callisto" site). I'm a bit concerned
> that names like Europa and Io might have to change due to some
> internationalization issue (remember "Nova"?). And besides, English
> version identifiers don't reflect the global nature of the Eclipse
> community.
> 
> Version numbers don't have to be translated, they scale well, they sort,
> they handle maintenance releases, and everybody understands them.
> 
> P.S. - The Eclipse SDK splash still incorrectly says "3.2" in 3.3M3.
> 
> --Ed
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-dev mailing list
> eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev