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.
Doug.
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gunnar Wagenknecht
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:46 AM
To: Eclipse Planning Council private list <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Next Planning Council call : May2
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.
