| Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Next Planning Council call : May2 |
|
Nick, I see a note just after yours asking for "Volunteers needed for
Photon Release Train Webinars!". If that asked for "Volunteers
needed for 2018-09 Release Train Webinars!" that would seem fine
to me. If that asked for "Volunteers needed for Desktop IDE
2018-09 Release Train Webinars!" that would seem unwieldy and
overly qualified to me. Do we have another release train? Is an
RCP application a Desktop IDE? Is any old IApplication a Desktop
IDE? Must we include Desktop in the qualifier in order to exclude
something? Are we not following branding guidelines because
"Eclipse" is missing from the name ? Is it still under qualified
because Eclipse has another Desktop IDE? And even if it doesn't
currently, will we need to change it when Eclipse does have
another one? The discussion over "the name" has gone on forever and I still
keep wondering (and asking), to what specifically are we assigning
a name? In that light, I have to ask myself, what are the results
of the release train process itself?
The p2 update sites do have names. What should they be for these
two? That being asked, it's clear that that's hardly the most
significant question to debate, given that the names appear only
in p2 dialogs in whatever application includes p2 update support.
In that context, the name hardly needs significant qualification
to describe itself. When updating your Eclipse Desktop IDE (or
whatever application) it will be clear that the update site is for
some type of updates for your application in the first place. The products/packages that can be downloaded are already branded
and do already have names. That's all determined by the EPP
project, not by the planning Council. We might influence them,
but again, when a user downloads a package or install its with the
Eclipse Installer (which we would have called the Oomph Installer
but it was forcefully suggested that we use Eclipse Installer) we
do so from a web page that will tell us what it is we are
downloading. So how much qualification does the splash screen
itself need? Not so much I think; just some type of version
indicator. And in the end, the Foundation staff will determine
the contents of the download pages... I believe we really will never come up with a name to which someone won't object. In fact, it seems clear to me that any name will end up either meaningless, jargon, or over qualified by virtue of being descriptive. No one will be well served by it. Best we avoid the whole mess because that mess is kind of the point of dropping the branded release name in the first place. Regards,
On 03.05.2018 22:12, Nick Boldt wrote:
|