Sdk: Update CLI Branding and Versioning

Created on 3 May 2016 · 21Comments · Source: dotnet/sdk

Update CLI version numbers and branding strings.

THIS IS A BREAKING CHANGE

Anyone testing with an older build of CLI may be broken by this change. The SDK version is moving from rc2 to preview1, a lower preview version string. Please uninstall/delete any older installation of dotnet prior to using a new version that includes this change.

Also note that folks depending on CLI-produced NuGet packages will be affected. Tools NuGet packages will also be affected. Anyone depending on 1.0.0-* version of CLI produced NuGet packages will need to include the updated version suffix e.g. 1.0.0-preview1-* to get the latest packages. See the table below for details.

Branding changes

Microsoft .NET Core SDK --> Microsoft .NET Core 1.0 RC2 - SDK Preview 1
Microsoft .NET Core --> Microsoft .NET Core 1.0 RC2 - Runtime
Microsoft .NET Core Host --> Microsoft .NET Core 1.0 RC2 - Host

Versioning changes

The version update is less straightforward. The Shared Framework and its dependencies will remain RC2. The ProjectModel and its dependencies will also remain RC2. The remaining packages produced in this repo, namely the CLI and its dependencies, will have their version updated to preview1.

| Component | Old Ver Suffix | New Ver Suffix |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Host | rc2 | rc2 |
| Shared Framework | rc2 | rc2 |
| SDK | rc2 | preview1 |
| dotnet-compile-fsc.nupkg | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.Cli.Utils.nupkg | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.Compiler.Common | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.Files | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions | rc2 | rc2 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.ProjectModel | rc2 | rc2 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.ProjectModel.Loader | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.DotNet.ProjectModel.Workspaces | rc2 | preview1 |
| Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel | rc2 | rc2 |
| Microsoft.Extensions.Testing.Abstractions | rc2 | preview1 |

Source

TheRealPiotrP

👎2

Most helpful comment

Seriously? What's the reasoning behind this?

khellang on 4 May 2016

👍16

All 21 comments

@Sridhar-MS let's use this bug to track adding 1.0.0-rc2 feature key to the MSI. We won't rev the NuGet Version Numbers.

TheRealPiotrP on 3 May 2016

1.0.0-rc2 is SemVer < 1.0.0-rc2-*, I suggest 1.0.0-rz2 :wink: or something like 1.0.0-rc2-final

schellap on 4 May 2016

;)

TheRealPiotrP on 4 May 2016

Will be fixed by https://github.com/dotnet/cli/pull/2877

TheRealPiotrP on 4 May 2016

Microsoft .NET Core SDK --> Microsoft .NET Core 1.0 RC2 - SDK Preview 1

SDK branding still has RC2. Should that be dropped?

Sridhar-MS on 4 May 2016

no, that is the exact string we want to use.

TheRealPiotrP on 4 May 2016

Seriously? What's the reasoning behind this?

khellang on 4 May 2016

👍16

A preview of the second release candidate. And not 'the' preview, but the first, so more will follow. Is this the equivalent of a beta of a release candidate? If so, perhaps you guys/gals should look up what the term 'release candidate' is used for ;).

My suggestion would be to go back to beta -> RC1 -> RCn -> RTM and don't change the world after Beta anymore, so trust in this release policy (if you can call it that) can be restored. I mean... what does 'preview1' even mean? Especially for people who want to start using coreFX when RC2 drops: do they have to wait till the preview days are over and RC2, the GA version that is of RC2, hits the streets? Confusing.

FransBouma on 4 May 2016

👍12

Or just acknowledge that ship has sailed and there might be many more rc* releases until it's ready.

CoreyKaylor on 4 May 2016

👍7 ❤2

so for example Microsoft.DotNet.ProjectModel will be rc2 but Microsoft.DotNet.ProjectModel.Workspaces will be preview1, this is quite confusing

filipw on 4 May 2016

👍2

It's not just confusing - it's breaking.
Just admit the rc mistake and go on with rc3, rc4, .., rc5023. It's still better than to break package managers.

forki on 5 May 2016

My apologies, this change got communicated a little earlier than we intended without the context that it needs. We're working to put together the full communication around these (and related changes) so we can share it (with the required context) in the next few days. Thanks in advance for understanding.

DamianEdwards on 5 May 2016

👍4

Please use rc2. Or rc4 if rc3 was already used.
It's ok, it's just a number.

If you like preview, use preview next iteration, after rtm.

But beta -> rc -> rtm it's easy to understand. Preview of what?

enricosada on 5 May 2016

👍4

While we appreciate the feedback, as I stated above there is some more context coming soon that will hopefully clarify the changes. Until then, might I suggest we leave this issue to track the specific change it was intended to manage, rather than turn it into a general conversation regarding the versioning of .NET Core. Thanks again.

DamianEdwards on 5 May 2016

I don't care what the context is, please don't do this. You're just making a bad situation worse. This is a great product, but people are losing confidence quickly. It's already been like 6 months and a crazy number of breaking changes from "RC1". I know you guys are think that you are going to release RC2 and it will be a real RC, but there have been WAY too many changes to just jump to that. You need to let the community tell you when it's ready and not try to follow some schedule. Start cranking out "RC"s every few weeks until the community is having success with the framework and let that tell you when it should be deemed 1.0.

ejsmith on 5 May 2016

❤3 👍3

Eric, as Damian has said you are not seeing the entire story, just a small piece of something that showed up in GitHub a little too early. We are very aware that the tooling has changed considerably since we shipped the RC1 release and we don't expect it to magically be done overnight. Please wait until we get the blog post out. It will explain the entire state of the project, our upcoming schedule for when and how we plan to release the frameworks and tools.

coolcsh on 5 May 2016

I believe that it is necessary to maintain a version of a sexual, it's simple and easy to understand. If changes will seem very confusing. So please do not change, pleading.