Note that inside the 'dev' folder https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-platform/incubating-9.0-rc1-rc1/ we have incubating-netbeans-platform-9.0-rc1-bin.zip
So the artifact itself is not called -rc1-rc1. Only the tag and the folder we use inside dev/incubator. Once the vote passed, the artifact was the same, but the folder was renamed not to include -rc1-rc1 but just -rc1: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-platform/incubating-9.0-rc1/ I think we are clear on what needs to be done and the next release manager will use something else. I believe Geertjan had a wider scope in mind when starting this thread, let's focus on that. --emi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 30 May 2018 6:20 PM, Ognyan Kulev <[email protected]> wrote: > A refinement of this initial proposal for using semver.org is the > > following build artifact version example. It includes as informational > > metadata the date of the build and the short git commit hash. This full > > version is used for issue reporting and possibly other developer purposes. > > 9.0.0-beta.1.vote.2+20180115.d23e386 > > 9.0.0-beta.1.vote.3+20180209.41da26b > > The "user" would be presented with the following user-friendly version > > (for the last voted build artifact): > > 9.0.0 Beta 1 > > The distributors of the release would use the following version > > specifier (for the last voted build artifact): > > 9.0.0-beta.1 > > Best regards, > > Ognyan > > На 30.05.2018 в 17:48, Ognyan Kulev написа: > > > Hello, > > > > I propose using -vote1, -vote2, ... suffixes. This way the reason behind > > > > the released build becomes explicit. > > > > Why not just use Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 https://semver.org/? The > > > > semantics of all version components would be clearly defined by a > > > > standard. The user-visible change would be using three-numbers version > > > > 9.0.0 (instead of the often used two-numbers version 9.0) that sometimes > > > > may be presented as one-number version 9. The pre-release versions that > > > > we are talking about would look like this: > > > > 9.0.0-rc1.vote1 > > > > 9.0.0-rc2.vote1 > > > > 9.0.0-rc2.vote2 > > > > 9.0.0-rc2 > > > > The semver.org example for version precedence is: > > > > 1.0.0-alpha < 1.0.0-alpha.1 < 1.0.0-alpha.beta < 1.0.0-beta < > > > > 1.0.0-beta.2 < 1.0.0-beta.11 < 1.0.0-rc.1 < 1.0.0 > > > > Please look at point 11 in the specification for details. > > > > And there is build metadata syntax that may be used. It's not used in > > > > version comparison, e.g. > > > > 9.0.0-beta1.vote3+20180202 > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ognyan > > > > На 30.05.2018 в 13:34, Sven Reimers написа: > > > > > +1 for build1 build2 suffixes > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > Geertjan Wielenga [email protected] schrieb am Mi., 30. > > > > > > Mai 2018, 12:15: > > > > > > > Sure, build1, etc, is also fine and ptobably clearer than vc1 etc. > > > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Jan Lahoda [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What does vc mean? Vote candidate? I know the „Problem“ behind the > > > > > > > > > > > > vote, > > > > > > > > > > > but if we make fixes or whatever, we have a new build, with a new > > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > number so the vote was for rc1-20180303 or the build number > > > > > > > > > > > > rc1-143. If > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > vote fails, we make some stuff like fixes or whatever and we have a > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > build so rc1-20180304 or rc1-144 or whatever. So you are still > > > > > > > > > > > > counting > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers but rc is confusing and vc yeah could be but it is not my > > > > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > > > > favorite. It is not concrete enough. IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > One thing to note is that we have released "Apache NetBeans 9.0 > > > > > > > > > > RC1". The > > > > > > > > > > second -rc1, or -vc1, or anything else is just a marker for various > > > > > > > > > > builds > > > > > > > > > > and should only be seen by the developer community (and > > > > > > > > > > general@incubator > > > > > > > > > > ), > > > > > > > > > > the end users should not see that. > > > > > > > > > > I don't mind the -vc1, -vc2, -vc3. An alternative might be "-build1", > > > > > > > > > > "-build2" or "-b1", "-b2", etc. That would be close to what > > > > > > > > > > Christian is > > > > > > > > > > proposing, and might also be closer to what non-Apache folks expect. > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > PS: I'd like to thank Emilian for doing the RC1 release: greatly > > > > > > > > > > appreciated! > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Von: Geertjan Wielenga > > > > > > > > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2018 08:55 > > > > > > > > > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Betreff: Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache > > > > > > NetBeans > > > > > > > > > > > > 9.0 > > > > > > > > > > > But please understand what this is about — when we go through the > > > > > > > > > > > > voting > > > > > > > > > > > process in Apache, the vote may fail, which has happened several > > > > > > times > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > then we need to make fixes, produce a new release, and start the > > > > > > > > > > > > voting > > > > > > > > > > > > process again. > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is how to distinguish between these vote candidates, I > > > > > > > > > > > > propose > > > > > > > > > > > > vc1, vc2, vc3, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Christian Lenz [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rc1-rc1 doesn’t make sense at all and is confusing. It still was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for People for beta-rc1. There is no beta-rc in the wild. Either > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > beta or RC but beta-rc? Wy we don’t use the build number for this > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > date? When you download the nightly, there is a Long number in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > titlebar, I think it was the date like NetBeans 9.0-dev-20180101 > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smth > > > > > > > > > > > > > like that. So why not using beta-20180303 and for RC too? So > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knows, that this rc is the latest build or is 3 days old. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Von: Wade Chandler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2018 01:41 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Betreff: Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache > > > > > > > NetBeans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t like the rc1-rc1 bit. I think once one knows the reason it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they can understand it, but a release candidate for a release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > candidate, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > just hard to say with a straight face IMO. I prefer the rc1-vc1 > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, I think folks will ask what it means, but at least the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the shorthand match exactly what it is; voting candidate for a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > candidate versus RC for an RC. My couple pennies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Antonio [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a problem with the "rc1-rc1", "rc1-rc2" approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Antonio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/05/18 22:03, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We’re going to continue to use the release90 branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next — and hopefully last — release candidate before the > > > > > > > > > final > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of NB 9.0 will be rc2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will need to vote on that release in the Apache PPMC and > > > > > > > > > IPMC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all other releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There may be a need to vote multiple times, though we’re > > > > > > > > > getting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > putting releases together and so, just like for the rc1, we > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one round of votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I propose we use the shortened names rc2-vc1, rc2-vc2, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rc2-vc3, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i.e., ‘vc’ standing for ‘voting candidate’, these would be > > > > > > > > > for an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > three rounds of Apache voting for the rc2 release, though > > > > > > > > > we’ll > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only need rc2-vc1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is also the structure suggested by our mentor Bertrand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rc2 will be the releae on which the NetCAT and beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acceptance survey will be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless there are objections, I propose we use this structure. > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object, you should provide a counter proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
