On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:

> IMO, we should just go with 0.9.6. That way we can continue to test the
> release scripts.
>

+1


>
> -Alex
>
> On 11/19/18, 3:17 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     You probably don't want to use 0.9.5@next. The @ sign denotes a "tag"
> in the npm registry, and users would need to install that particular
> version of Royale like this:
>
>     npm install -g @apache-royale/royale-js@next
>
>     Instead of this:
>
>     npm install -g @apache-royale/royale-js
>
>     You may be able to use 0.9.5-next. Technically, in semver, the dash is
> supposed to be used for prerelease builds, but I don't think that it's
> enforced. This should still be considered a different version number than
> 0.9.5, I think, and no special install command is required.
>
>     - Josh
>
>     On 2018/11/19 19:50:26, OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>     > Okay, I unpublished 0.9.5 and published 0.9.4.  Looks like we are
> okay for
>     > now.  (It wouldn't let me publish 0.9.4 because 0.9.5 was already
> there)
>     >
>     > I suggest that for the next release, we can choose to skip 0.9.5 or
> for NPM
>     > alone, we publish it as 0.9.5@next (or something like that)
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Om
>     >
>     > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]
> >
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     > > IMO, if we aren't going to use 0.9.5, no need to unpublish it, just
>     > > publish a 0.9.4 for now and we'll skip 0.9.5
>     > >
>     > > My 2 cents,
>     > > -Alex
>     > >
>     > > On 11/19/18, 10:57 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected]
> >
>     > > wrote:
>     > >
>     > >     Turns out we can unpublish a version within 72 hours.  Let me
> try to
>     > >     unpublish 0.9.5 and publish 0.9.4 if that is possible.
>     > >     Although we still may not be able to publish 0.9.5 next time
> as per the
>     > >     docs here:
>     > >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.npmjs.com%2Fcli%2Funpublish&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce0a228debe684196045a08d64e753902%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636782662705454521&amp;sdata=Clg7YGqIGCNjlYxh00ZJH5356ZnVufWGaZhQjyXqmiI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     > >
>     > >     Thanks,
>     > >     Om
>     > >
>     > >     On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM Alex Harui
> <[email protected]>
>     > > wrote:
>     > >
>     > >     > In the past discussion, I suggested a change to the release
> script
>     > > that
>     > >     > apparently never happened and I did not check to see that it
>     > > happened.  I
>     > >     > have made the suggested change and we'll see if that change
> helps on
>     > > the
>     > >     > next release.
>     > >     >
>     > >     > I think someone could also publish the bits as 0.9.4 if they
> have
>     > > time.  I
>     > >     > don't want to take the time to do that.  I will bump the dev
>     > > branches to
>     > >     > 0.9.6 this week sometime.  Our next release will have to be
> 0.9.6,
>     > > just
>     > >     > like we skipped 0.9.3.
>     > >     >
>     > >     > -Alex
>     > >     >
>     > >     > On 11/19/18, 7:25 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <
> [email protected]>
>     > > wrote:
>     > >     >
>     > >     >     Yeah, there is no way to unpublish it.
>     > >     >     I'm guessing that the the version number get bumped
> twice?
>     > >     >
>     > >     >     On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:18 AM Harbs <
> [email protected]>
>     > > wrote:
>     > >     >
>     > >     >     > Ouch. Am I correct in assuming that there’s no way to
>     > > “unpublish”
>     > >     > 0.9.5?
>     > >     >     >
>     > >     >     > Why did this happen again?
>     > >     >     >
>     > >     >     > Harbs
>     > >     >     >
>     > >     >     > > On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Alex Harui
>     > > <[email protected]>
>     > >     >     > wrote:
>     > >     >     > >
>     > >     >     > > Artifacts have been pushed, but it looks like NPM
> again has
>     > > the
>     > >     > wrong
>     > >     >     > version number.
>     > >     >     >
>     > >     >     >
>     > >     >
>     > >     >
>     > >     >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>
>
>

Reply via email to