-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
Next versioned release #310
Comments
I tried to get one going, but we were waiting on the next version of consensus-specs, and its kind of blocking so I may just have to make one. I'd like one before merging all the deneb content... |
Sounds like we need to kick ethereum/consensus-specs#3323 - I've dropped a note in there. |
I had bigger fish to fry, but yes, thanks for commenting. Alternatively we can ship and reference the spec RC... |
There is now a 1.3.0 release for the consensus specs, so we should be able to release. |
slightly off-topic but what is the reason releases in this repo are blocked on releases from the cl-specs repo? |
for future hard forks, we may want to follow the same pattern w/ having pre-releases like the CL specs, if we in fact want to couple them together |
Not completely off topic. We were looking for a capella spec to release cleanly and keep deneb separate, we may have to just have a perpetual mess in the apis if we can't release along spec lines... The option we went with this time was get all of capella in without all of the deneb endpoints (they were previously named EIP which was particularly problematic). If the forks are named correctly, I'd be ok with having partial 'deneb' stuff in a point release, but wasn't happy to have codes like EIP4844 in an actual release... |
released! Closing ticket. |
Curious when the next release here will be?
Have any of the maintainers here discussed what the release cadence will be moving forward?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: