# Nightly names with current release version are confusing
**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742
**Category:** Development
**Created:** [January 6, 2022, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742 "2022-01-06T18:18:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/1 "2022-01-06T18:18:38Z")
Why do we include the number of the currently released version in nightly builds of ParaView? Why not just “nightly” instead of “5.10.0-RC2”, for example?
The problem with including the version number is that it suggests the nightly is a build of some later version of the previously released version, not from the latest `master`. As a consequence, one may mistakenly assume features that are in the nightly from the `master` branch will be in the version referenced in the name, but that is quite often not the case.
Ignoring implementation details for now, how about replacing the most recent version string with “Nightly”, e.g., “ParaView Nightly-ga5e1ddfed5”? Or the branch name to accommodate release branch binaries, e.g., “ParaView Nightly Release-gabcdef1234”.
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 7:27pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/2 "2022-01-06T19:27:19Z")
I totally, totally agree. How about ParaView-Nightly-master-ga5e1ddfed5 or even ParaView-Master-ga5e1ddfed5. Do we even need to say nightly, as that is already the page chosen on the download website? Last, as this is really always master, how about just ParaView-ga5e1ddfed5 on the nightly download page?
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/3 "2022-01-06T19:59:55Z")
This has been bothering me for a while. I think having the branch name in the name make sense and could help if we have nightly of other branches for some reasons.
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/4 "2022-01-07T00:04:20Z")
How about just bumping `master` to be `5.10.100`? VTK does bump the patch to be date-based; `9.1.20220106` is used, but this means the version number changes every day; the version should be suitably hidden from that churn, but I don’t know if ParaView’s is.
If we decide to do this, an entry in the release process should be to make an MR bumping `version.txt` post-rc1 branching.
---
### Author:  [@Andrew\_Maclean](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/Andrew_Maclean)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/5 "2022-01-07T00:50:08Z")
I had assumed that under the heading **Release Candidates** anything with “5.10.0-RC2” actually meant Release Candidate 2 for ParaView 5.10.0. The date on the file e.g. “2021-12-22 19:26” also gives the impression that its a Release Candidate since ParaView 5.10 was released on “Dec 22 20:48”. So I was monitoring these for changes. The line: “Previews of ParaView’s next release.” also tends to reinfrforce that impression. I didn’t realise that some features here would never appear in the Release 5.10 as it was frozen a few months back.
---
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 2:05am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/6 "2022-01-07T02:05:28Z")
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> How about just bumping `master` to be `5.10.100`?
The would keep the major.minor version number, which is the source of confusion, and adding an arbitrary 100 in the patch number will just add to that I’m afraid.
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 8:28am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/7 "2022-01-07T08:28:39Z")
I agree with @cory.quammen . What works for VTK (developper oriented) will not work for ParaView.
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 2:58pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/8 "2022-01-07T14:58:57Z")
Then do we move to odd-minor is in-development and even-minor is a user-facing release? Make `master` 5.11 and release 5.12 in the spring?
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 3:08pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/9 "2022-01-07T15:08:20Z")
You lost me there.
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 5:51pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/10 "2022-01-07T17:51:52Z")
Ben, NO. To users, we want the versions to make sense, and flow in a contiguous manner.
(Mathieu, Ben’s question is should odd versions be used for master, such as 5.1,5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11 and even be used for releases such as 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, etc.)
So, again, why not just leave everything as is, except the tarball name for nightly? I believe it is the tarball name that is the primary issue. Drop the version, and if desired, add nightly?
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 11:39pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/11 "2022-01-07T23:39:26Z")
> [@wascott](#):
>
> Ben, NO. To users, we want the versions to make sense, and flow in a contiguous manner.
Oh, I don’t like the scheme either. It was a reply to:
> [@cory.quammen](#):
>
> The would keep the major.minor version number
> [@wascott](#):
>
> So, again, why not just leave everything as is, except the tarball name for nightly?
The version should still be included to avoid having to download and extract the tarball to figure out what each tarball contains. Would this work?
`ParaView-nightly-5.10.0-451-g61c424a-MPI-Linux-Python3.9-x86_64.tar.gz`
Note that the titlebar will not include the `nightly` without other code changes.
---
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2022, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/12 "2022-01-08T16:47:09Z")
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> Would this work?
>
> `ParaView-nightly-5.10.0-451-g61c424a-MPI-Linux-Python3.9-x86_64.tar.gz`
Almost. Change `5.10` to `5.11-preview` to make clear that this is leading up to 5.11 and not representative of anything in 5.10, and I like it. We could even drop the nightly from the name. What do we think?
---
### Author:  [@todoooo](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/todoooo)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2022, 11:04pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/13 "2022-01-08T23:04:26Z")
Do these nightly builds use the VTK master as well?
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2022, 12:29am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/14 "2022-01-09T00:29:46Z")
> [@cory.quammen](#):
>
> Almost. Change `5.10` to `5.11-preview` to make clear that this is leading up to 5.11 and not representative
I just wonder where we get that number from if we’re not committing it to the repository somewhere.
> [@todoooo](#):
>
> Do these nightly builds use the VTK master as well?
Whatever VTK is pointed to by the submodule. It moves roughly weekly (depending on the curve balls VTK ends up throwing ParaView’s way).
---
### Author:  [@todoooo](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/todoooo)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2022, 12:33am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/15 "2022-01-09T00:33:16Z")
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> > [@cory.quammen](#):
> >
> > Almost. Change `5.10` to `5.11-preview` to make clear that this is leading up to 5.11 and not representative
>
> I just wonder where we get that number from if we’re not committing it to the repository somewhere.
5.10-nightly-development perhaps?
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> Whatever VTK is pointed to by the submodule. It moves roughly weekly (depending on the curve balls VTK ends up throwing ParaView’s way).
Is there any way to determine that version from the tarball?
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2022, 6:15pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/16 "2022-01-09T18:15:48Z")
> I just wonder where we get that number from if we’re not committing it to the repository somewhere.
My understanding is that the number actually change in this proposition.
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 3:17am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/17 "2022-01-10T03:17:21Z")
I’m good with your proposal, Cory. Above my pay grade with regards to how to implement it.
---
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 2:46pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/18 "2022-01-10T14:46:06Z")
> [@mwestphal](#):
>
> My understanding is that the number actually change in this proposition.
Correct - just bump the version in `version.txt` to `5.11-preview`. It would be easy to do that, at least. Can anyone think of any unintended consequences? PV-based apps might need to update version numbers they need to know about.
> [@todoooo](#):
>
> Is there any way to determine that version from the tarball?
There is a `version.txt` file in the ParaView source files that contains only the version number in plain text.
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 2:53pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/19 "2022-01-10T14:53:45Z")
> Can anyone think of any unintended consequences?
One big issue I can see is cmake check.
MAJOR=5
MINOR=11
PATCH=?
-1 ?
0 ?
preview ?
All cmake checks should keep working.
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 4:08pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/20 "2022-01-10T16:08:11Z")
> [@cory.quammen](#):
>
> Correct - just bump the version in `version.txt` to `5.11-preview`.
This means that the versioning scheme is no longer monotonically increasing. Once we have `5.11`, what is `5.11.0` coming after?
[Next page](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742.md?page=2)