-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
Beta/Alpha version release? #1336
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Will there be 0.18? |
A lot has been added since 0.17, but from what I see, a lot of the features are in development or not fully completed. I do agree that a 0.18 release would be very nice. |
+1 for a new release Me too, this blocks a new release of pygit2. What in turn blocks the very much needed changes to the pygit2 API. |
I am very open to a 0.18 release, at this point. We've been hoping, as you know, for a 1.0, but I think there are so many pending changes that we should probably get 0.18 out, accept that it is a disruptive change, and then know that the 0.18 -> 1.0 change will not be as radical (which, in my mind, is actually a good thing). Some thoughts on what we might want to do prior to an 0.18 tag:
That's probably enough. There are a few other PRs that are worth merging, but I wouldn't consider them release blockers (maybe #1450 and #1459 since they are known pending API changes). Thoughts? |
@arrbee why so many things before 0.18? Just release and for each one of those things to be merged make another 0.x release? This will give a lot more testing to the api and to the code itself... |
@nacho agree This is long time overdue. Don't even need to make release notes detailing what has changed since 0.17, just a tag and a tarball, and merging development into master. This would make happy a lot of people. |
I only meant to keep the discussion moving, not say that that had to be the list. Those are mostly items where the code is written and are just pending review and merge, but that will have implications for bindings and performance that would be nice to tackle right away. That being said, I was thinking that was a list that was achievable by the end of next week. If it seems longer after discussion, then I agree we shouldn't wait for anything that's more than a couple days of extra work. |
Okay, had some offline chat with folks and I think we've got agreement to tag a v0.18.0 release next week. For reference, a roughly correct current state of things regarding changes from Added Externals
Removed Externals
Replaced Externals
I suspect a couple of further tweaks might go in (for example, if |
@arrbee That's good news! Thanks. |
indeed thanks a lot |
Another changed external
And an added one
|
Just so no one is surprised, we're going to hold off a day before tagging a release. It doesn't seem like a good day for a release. We did merge a couple of PRs today, so if possible, please look over the head of the development branch and make sure there are no surprises before we tag v0.18 tomorrow. |
And, as promised: Play around with it. We'll be tagging 1.0preview1 during the Git Merge (11 May) if everything goes according to plan. |
Thanks, just released pygit2 v0.18.0 and uploaded to pypi. |
I just finished testing the build on my machine and I'll be updating my On Tue 16 Apr 2013 05:05:25 PM EDT, J. David Ibáñez wrote:
|
Hey,
I guess that you are still a bit far from the stable release, but now that the api is getting stabilized what about a beta release? I ask this 'cause in this way I could start making the package for fedora and maybe other distros. It is also blocking me from making the release for my bindings package.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: