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

Let's talk the next release (0.4.0 edition) #834

Closed
5 tasks done
travisbrown opened this issue Jan 30, 2016 · 13 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

Let's talk the next release (0.4.0 edition) #834

travisbrown opened this issue Jan 30, 2016 · 13 comments

Comments

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor

Previously: #486, #594. It's been almost three months since 0.3.0 and there are potentially some big changes coming in #786, so we think it's time for an 0.4.0 release.

Update on progress from Gitter this morning:

781: Done.

772: Done.

757: Seems close to ready after #772, with one open question (about whether the compose should be there).

821 [now #833]: We've got a fix—we just need a name for the ap on CartesianBuilderN and a Simulacrum 0.6.2 release—so I think it should go in.

723: I'd still really like to see 0.4.0 published to the org.typelevel group, and there seems to be agreement that that's a good idea, so I guess it's up to @non to decide whether he wants to deal with the changes to the release process now or later.

817: I could go either way—I like the current proposal but don't think it has to make it into 0.4.0.

631: I changed my mind here because of Algebra-related complications that might be changing / going away soon, and I don't think it belongs in this release.

Here's what still needs to happen:

Please comment here as soon as possible if there's other stuff you really want to see in 0.4.0.

@non
Copy link
Contributor

non commented Jan 30, 2016

I'm fine with publishing to org.typelevel. I also want to move this repo to typelevel. We already got consensus on both points.

Is there any reason for me not to just do that today? (Either way I'll submit a PR changing the publishing info.)

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

@non Sounds good to me!—I just know nothing about who has the ability to publish to org.typelevel, etc., so I wasn't sure how much of a hassle it would be.

@longcao
Copy link
Contributor

longcao commented Jan 30, 2016

Where does the { non | org.typelevel }.github.io/cats documentation fit into the release (or the release process in general)? AFAIK the current site doesn't appear to have been pushed in awhile, as it says "Last updated on September 19, 2015".

@non
Copy link
Contributor

non commented Jan 30, 2016

@longcao Well -- if we move the repo to typelevel then yeah, we'll have to update a lot of links (internal and external). I wonder if it would be worth just using a domain name rather than exposing the repo information in the URL?

@longcao
Copy link
Contributor

longcao commented Jan 30, 2016

@non ah yeah I hadn't even thought of that, I was thinking about whether the doc pages are pushed in parallel with publishing a new release

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

ceedubs commented Jan 31, 2016

Regarding #757: since Miles is on holiday, I've opened up #843 as a replacement. It includes the changes from #757 along with resolving merge conflicts and incorporating the discussed changes.

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

ceedubs commented Feb 1, 2016

After this comment, it sounds like we are going to wait on Monoidal, and that release notes are probably the only pending item!

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ceedubs Great! I'm finishing them up right now. Last time we published the final version of the release notes after the release, so if someone who has access wants to get the release process started now, it sounds like we could consider ourselves ready.

@non
Copy link
Contributor

non commented Feb 1, 2016

Do we want to release now? Or wait for #817?

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

@non My vote is not wait.

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

ceedubs commented Feb 1, 2016

@non agreed. Let's go ahead and release.

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, we're not waiting on #817, and I've just posted release notes for review in #848, so all the boxes are checked.

@travisbrown
Copy link
Contributor Author

Resolved by afa0ed2.

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

4 participants