You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> on 2018/05/29 13:34:36 UTC

Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Hi all,

Major development today, with thanks to many people for working on the
release and Emilian for putting it together, we have released the rc1 of
Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating) 9.0.

My thoughts on the current status are here in the Apache NetBeans blog:

https://blogs.apache.org/netbeans/entry/announce-apache-netbeans-incubating-91

The cadence of our releases is going to speed up significantly, I believe,
and we could look at doing a minor release every 2 months with a major
release every 6 months, for example. Right now everything is as slow as
sludge since we're getting started with the whole process, though we're
getting better at it all the time.

Please read the blog entry above to orientate yourself around where we are
and what the requirements are from this point onwards, feel free to ask
questions, and we can update that blog entry accordingly.

Thanks,

Geertjan, on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@protonmail.ch>.

> PS: I'd like to thank Emilian for doing the RC1 release: greatly
> appreciated!

Aw shucks! :-) You worked a whole lot on the javac part too! I actually keep meaning on getting into those modules too.

--emi

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On 30 May 2018 11:27 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz christian.lenz@gmx.net
> 
> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 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 christian.lenz@gmx.net 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > 
> > > 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 antonio@vieiro.net 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > 
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > 
> > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > > 
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com>.

Now I see that I jumped in without fully understanding the topic :-)

My proposal for using "-vote1" suffix still stands. I think it's much 
more clearer that "-rc1" and "-vc1".

Best regards,
Ognyan

На 30.05.2018 в 22:25, Emilian Bold написа:
> 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 <og...@ognyankulev.com> 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 geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com 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 lahoda@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> christian.lenz@gmx.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 christian.lenz@gmx.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 antonio@vieiro.net 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>>
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>
>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by "William L. Thomson Jr." <wl...@o-sinc.com>.

On Wed, 30 May 2018 15:25:44 -0400
Emilian Bold <em...@protonmail.ch> wrote:

> I believe Geertjan had a wider scope in mind when starting this
> thread, let's focus on that.

That is likely my fault, my question turned into a discussion.
Sorry about that! I did not mean for it to hijack the thread...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@protonmail.ch>.

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 <og...@ognyankulev.com> 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 geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com 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 lahoda@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz
> > > > > 
> > > > > christian.lenz@gmx.net
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 christian.lenz@gmx.net
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 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 antonio@vieiro.net 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:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> > 
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> 
> --
> 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by "William L. Thomson Jr." <wl...@o-sinc.com>.

Is a suffix necessary? Why not just stick with what ever, rc1, beta, etc

As I see it, if you do any tag that a vote fails on. Why not withdraw
that tag entirely. If the vote passes, the tag remains. Thus a -rc1
would be all that is needed for a passed vote.

For example, Jetty just had  a 9.4.11.v20180521 tag. For what ever
reason that was withdrawn and removed.
https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/releases

I think a similar approach is clearer to all and does not require
additional suffixes.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com>.

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 <ge...@googlemail.com> 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 <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz 
>>>> <ch...@gmx.net>
>>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>> 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 <ch...@gmx.net>
>>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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:
>>> dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Ognyan Kulev <og...@ognyankulev.com>.

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 <ge...@googlemail.com> 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 <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>> 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 <ch...@gmx.net>
>>> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>> 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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:
>> dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>.

+1 for build1 build2 suffixes

Sven

Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> 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 <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
> > 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > 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 <ch...@gmx.net>
> > 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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:
> dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.

Sure, build1, etc, is also fine and ptobably clearer than vc1 etc.

Gj

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 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 <ch...@gmx.net>
> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <ch...@gmx.net> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.

Please read the thread again. I have explained ‘vc’ several times now.

Gj


On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net> 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.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2018 08:55
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <ch...@gmx.net> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

AW: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.

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.


Cheers

Chris

Von: Geertjan Wielenga
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2018 08:55
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
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 <ch...@gmx.net> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.

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 <ch...@gmx.net> 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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
>

AW: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.

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: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org>.

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 <an...@vieiro.net> 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: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Antonio <an...@vieiro.net>.

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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018, William L. Thomson Jr. <wl...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 May 2018 15:34:36 +0200
>> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Major development today, with thanks to many people for working on the
>>> release and Emilian for putting it together, we have released the rc1
>>> of Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating) 9.0.
>>
>> The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?
>>
>> Sorry for asking the obvious. That rc1-rc1 is confusing many. I know it
>> will not be repeated, or I hope it will not. ;)
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> --
>> William L. Thomson Jr.
>>
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.

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.

Thanks,

Gj

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018, William L. Thomson Jr. <wl...@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2018 15:34:36 +0200
> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Major development today, with thanks to many people for working on the
> > release and Emilian for putting it together, we have released the rc1
> > of Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating) 9.0.
>
> The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?
>
> Sorry for asking the obvious. That rc1-rc1 is confusing many. I know it
> will not be repeated, or I hope it will not. ;)
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by "William L. Thomson Jr." <wl...@o-sinc.com>.

On Wed, 30 May 2018 00:17:06 -0400
Emilian Bold <em...@protonmail.ch> wrote:

> > The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?  
> 
> Good point, we have the 9.0-rc1-rc1 tag, perhaps I should add another
> tag 9.0-rc1 pointing to the same commit?

It is moot to me. I just have some 300+ packages to update. Not a big
deal, but I rather not do that back to back. Like updating once for a
vote, than again for a tag of the same thing.

Luckily Gentoo ebuild format does allow for chained rc, so
netbeans-9.0_rc1_rc1.ebuild, is valid just odd :)

I just would like to be able to update to test a release. Not that my
vote or anything would matter. I was just unsure if I should do that
for the rc1-rc1, if another rc1 was coming... If they are 2 tags to the
same point in git history. Its kinda moot, and surely not worth
updating the 300+ again just for change of rc1-rc1 -> rc1.

No worries, just trying to figure out when I should update my stuff.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@protonmail.ch>.

> The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?

Good point, we have the 9.0-rc1-rc1 tag, perhaps I should add another tag 9.0-rc1 pointing to the same commit?

--emi

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On 29 May 2018 10:00 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wl...@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2018 15:34:36 +0200
> 
> Geertjan Wielenga geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Major development today, with thanks to many people for working on the
> > 
> > release and Emilian for putting it together, we have released the rc1
> > 
> > of Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating) 9.0.
> 
> The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?
> 
> Sorry for asking the obvious. That rc1-rc1 is confusing many. I know it
> 
> will not be repeated, or I hope it will not. ;)
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> William L. Thomson Jr.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Where we are and where we are going with Apache NetBeans 9.0

Posted by "William L. Thomson Jr." <wl...@o-sinc.com>.

On Tue, 29 May 2018 15:34:36 +0200
Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Major development today, with thanks to many people for working on the
> release and Emilian for putting it together, we have released the rc1
> of Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating) 9.0.

The -rc1 is 9.0-rc1-rc1 or some new tag on Github coming?

Sorry for asking the obvious. That rc1-rc1 is confusing many. I know it
will not be repeated, or I hope it will not. ;)

Thank you!

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.