Skip to content
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

Release 3.35.0 #1915

Closed
jakirkham opened this issue Apr 29, 2024 · 8 comments
Closed

Release 3.35.0 #1915

jakirkham opened this issue Apr 29, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

As pointed out by @jaimergp, to close out the macOS-11 Azure image deprecation ( conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io#2067 ), we need a conda-smithy release

Looking at the changes since the last release, appears we have the following items:

  • Do not populate c_stdlib{,_version} in CI configs that don't need them (#1908)
  • Added linter rules for providing hints about updating to new stdlib-functionality (#1909)
  • Github Actions: Explicitly use macos-13 for osx-64 runners. (#1913)
  • Github Actions: Bump to setup-miniconda@v3 on Windows builds. (#1913)
  • Azure Pipelines: bump default macOS runners vmImage value to macos-12. (#1914)

Looks like this could make a good 3.35.0 release

Thoughts @conda-forge/core ?

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Should wait for #1912

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member Author

It appears that is marked as draft with some suggestions made. Do we think we can get it ready to go?

If not, are we ok doing another release when it is ready?

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Yes, and I haven't had a time to respond to them yet, because the comments arrived in the middle of the night for me. I'm asking you to wait a day or two.

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

A friendly reminder that smithy releases are basically free. We can make a release now and then again in a few days if we want.

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Yes, sure. But there's effort involved, rollbacks if anything breaks, etc., and in practice it happens only every couple of weeks.

In other words, if it's so free, why ask for input from core about a release? Is rubber-stamping the only option here? I don't get what the urgency is that waiting 1-2 days is somehow a burden.

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

I have no urgency, just wanted to point it out in case others felt a need to go ahead.

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Should wait for #1912

The issue (and thus the need for the PR) has been resolved, please feel free to go ahead with the release from my side. Thanks for the time it took to figure that one out.

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

beckermr commented May 1, 2024

done! I had to fix the rever configuration and made a push straight to main to get the release to go ahead.

@beckermr beckermr closed this as completed May 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants