Just as a quick FYI: Both JDK 9 and JDK 10 are supported in Apache NetBeans 9, i.e., no, we've not skipped JDK 10.
Gj On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Chuck Davis <cjgun...@gmail.com> wrote: > To me it makes sense to have NB reflect the level of Java implemented. For > example, features of JDK 11 can be added incrementally to NB 9.1, 9.2, etc. > (schedule is irrelevant to me -- every 3 months is fine) but when the full > function of JDK 11 is included then NB 11 should be released. I assume > we're going to skip JDK 10 at this point. Releases like 2018.3 tell me > nothing about what the product includes. But if Java moves to that naming > scheme then NB should move to that scheme to indicate what is implemented. > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > We've discussed this informally, i.e., the topic of the release > > cycle/cadence, a few times over the past months. > > > > Let's nail it down as far as possible so that we can give clarity to our > > users about our intentions and also to enable us to organize features > > coming in through donations and otherwise into releases. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > > Apache+NetBeans+Release+Cycle > > > > Right now, we have a clear suggestion around in which month of the year > we > > will release. I.e., the Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 release was our > > August release (and we even managed to release it a few days early, in > > July, hurray!). So, this year, we will have another release in November, > > that's our next big target, if we agree with the above proposal. > > > > However, a separate discussion is about release numbers. Our current > > release is 9.0. How do we decide to number the other releases? A simple > > proposal might be to have our major release in August of each year and > then > > all then make all the other releases minor. However, that's just a > thought, > > another one could be that we should simply consider how large the > features > > are that we have added and base major/minor on that. Or we could try to > > follow the JDK release numbering more or less. > > > > Anyway, thoughts welcome, > > > > Gj > > >
