# 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:** 14
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@danlipsa](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/danlipsa)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 6:06pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/21 "2022-01-10T18:06:31Z")
Maybe the confusion is that it is not clear if this nightly is before 5.10 or after 5.10:
ParaView-5.10.0-454-g5ee5bdfe50-MPI-Windows-Python3.9-msvc2017-AMD64.exe
How about if we rename this as:
ParaView-after-5.10.0-454-g5ee5bdfe50-MPI-Windows-Python3.9-msvc2017-AMD64.exe
or
ParaView-nightly-after-5.10.0-454-g5ee5bdfe50-MPI-Windows-Python3.9-msvc2017-AMD64.exe
Using the next version would mean that we know ahead of time what the next version is.
Is it 5.11 or is it 5.10.1?
Dan
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 11:33pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/22 "2022-01-10T23:33:45Z")
> [@danlipsa](#):
>
> How about if we rename this as:
> ParaView-after-5.10.0-454-g5ee5bdfe50-MPI-Windows-Python3.9-msvc2017-AMD64.exe
That fixes the tarball, but the titlebar and about dialog won’t know that.
> [@danlipsa](#):
>
> Using the next version would mean that we know ahead of time what the next version is.
> Is it 5.11 or is it 5.10.1?
Depends on which branch you’re on 🙂 .
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 11:56pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/23 "2022-01-10T23:56:17Z")
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> Depends on which branch you’re on 🙂 .
This gives me the idea: why not just put the branch name after `ParaView`? The build can extract this information easily enough (tarballs are out-of-luck, but that’s not new for untagged releases) and put it into the title bar too. Examples:
```auto
ParaView-master-5.10.0-454-g5ee5bdfe50
ParaView-release-5.10.0-10-gdeadbeef
```
---
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2022, 11:59pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/24 "2022-01-10T23:59:42Z")
> [@ben.boeckel](#):
>
> This gives me the idea: why not just put the branch name after `ParaView`?
This is an improvement. Let’s try it.
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2022, 12:09am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/25 "2022-01-11T00:09:40Z")
MR for ParaView’s titlebar: [https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/-/merge\_requests/5440](https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/-/merge_requests/5440)
See results here (word wrapped; the newline in the middle is just a space): [https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/-/jobs/6494437#L1108](https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/-/jobs/6494437#L1108)
MR for ParaView superbuild to rename the package: [https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview-superbuild/-/merge\_requests/953](https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview-superbuild/-/merge_requests/953)
Results will be here: [https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview-superbuild/-/jobs/6494585](https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview-superbuild/-/jobs/6494585)
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2022, 1:28am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/26 "2022-01-11T01:28:43Z")
> [@todoooo](#):
>
> Is there any way to determine that version from the tarball?
No, there isn’t. It could be dropped in there through the [source tarball generator script](https://gitlab.kitware.com/paraview/paraview/-/blob/master/Utilities/Maintenance/create_tarballs.bash). Dropping it for all submodules would be handy. But, it is gnarly in there; `git archive` and submodules work as well together as two rabid territorial badgers in a tiny cage.
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [October 24, 2022, 3:20am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/27 "2022-10-24T03:20:31Z")
Some time have passed and I think we should revisit this topic.
As we have seen, our versionning system system is not working super great during RC period, with the nightly release being named: `ParaView-master-5.11.0-RC2-211-g115116db37`
Of course, the `master` is a good improvement but still, this code has nothing in common with the RC process.
Another thing I remarked in the last few months is that VTK current versionning system, with the nigthly push of the data as the `patch` is very very useful for application developers, and ParaView being as much a framework as it is an application, I wished for this feature in ParaView a few times this year.
So here is my suggestion:
Hypothetical ParaView 5.11.2 is out.
During standard developement time:
- version is changed every night with a robot push : 5.11.20221024
On the split:
- release become 5.12.0-RCN
- master become 5.12.YYYYMMDD
During RC developement time
- release keep at 5.12.0-RCN+1 and such
- master version is changed every night with a robot push : 5.12.20221025
This way, we get the nice numbering system in the nightly release AND for applications developers.
The only things to do to get this is to setup the robot as with VTK and to add a small step in the release process.
The nightly release would for example be named:
`ParaView-master-5.12.20221025-212-g115116db38`
I thing we should still keep the branch name there anyway.
wdyt @cory.quammen @wascott @ben.boeckel@Francois_Mazen
---
### Author:  [@nicolas.vuaille](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/nicolas.vuaille)
#### Post date: [October 24, 2022, 7:51am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/28 "2022-10-24T07:51:41Z")
> [@mwestphal](#):
>
> - release become 5.12.0-RCN
> - master become 5.11.YYYYMMDD
I’m not sure to follow why master will keep beeing `5.11XXX` stuff and not `5.12XXX`. We are after 5.12 feature freeze.
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [October 24, 2022, 8:04am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/29 "2022-10-24T08:04:29Z")
Typo, fixed.
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2022, 4:05pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/30 "2022-10-30T16:05:32Z")
> [@mwestphal](#):
>
> `ParaView-master-5.12.20221025-212-g115116db38`
>
> I thing we should still keep the branch name there anyway.
I think the utility of the `-212-g…` bit is lost when the patch has a date number in it. Or at least the `-212`; the `-g…` bit can be handy (though we can probably use just 4 or 5 at that point since it’s pinned to a narrow date range at that point anyways).
---
### Author:  [@mwestphal](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/mwestphal)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2022, 1:18am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/31 "2022-10-31T01:18:07Z")
I agree about the `-212`, I’m perfectly ok to remove it unless it matters to someoneelse.
The only point of it would be to identify at a glance that a nightly is after or before another nightly, but the date also contains this information for anyone that know how a calendat works 🙂
---
### Author:  [@wascott](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/wascott)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2022, 4:09pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/32 "2022-10-31T16:09:38Z")
The only thing that I will insist on is that the nightlies remain sorted by creation date, and of course are unique. A few years ago the nightly list was not sorted, and it caused all kinds of confusion. Other than that, I’m good with any thing you propose.
---
### Author:  [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [November 11, 2022, 2:32pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/33 "2022-11-11T14:32:53Z")
I think this proposal is good. Who will implement the changes?
---
### Author:  [@ben.boeckel](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/ben.boeckel)
#### Post date: [November 11, 2022, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742/34 "2022-11-11T20:16:25Z")
Brad pointed me to where the robot does this for VTK and CMake. I’ll implement it for ParaView as well. There will likely be some metadata extraction changes that will need to be done, so I’ll hold off until after 5.11.0 to avoid upsetting any applecarts.
[Previous page](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/nightly-names-with-current-release-version-are-confusing/8742.md?page=1)