-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 222
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 PyGMT v0.5.0 #1576
Comments
@GenericMappingTools/pygmt-maintainers Please let me know if I have forgotten any priority pull requests. |
Due to an unforeseen family emergency, we'll need to push this release out by a week or two and assign a new release manager. Ideally we keep this to October still, so how about somewhere between 22-29 October? Any preferences @GenericMappingTools/pygmt-maintainers? |
My vote is October 27-29; I can stay the release manager if the delay is that long. |
I changed the release date to October 29th; if I should make it a week earlier please let me know! |
Ok, so we've got a reply from pyOpenSci (xref #677), and there's an impression that the disclaimer on our front README.md is a bit too scary:
Maybe we should tone down on the wording of this disclaimer for PyGMT v0.5.0, as I suggested at pyOpenSci/software-submission#43 (comment). How do people feel about PyGMT's stability, especially considering that we have a deprecation policy in place at https://github.com/GenericMappingTools/pygmt/blob/v0.4.1/doc/maintenance.md#backwards-compatibility-and-deprecation-policy? |
I think it's a good idea to reword or remove this; our deprecation policy is at odds with a statement making it seem like every release may introduce breaking changes. The fact that we have changelogs and release announcement that discuss changes is sufficient, in my opinion, to inform users if there is a change that may break some of their code.
I think PyGMT has been very stable; since I came to the project 11 months ago. I don't think there have been any user-facing changes that would break older code. If the goal is to get PyGMT to v1.0, as the pyOpenSci reply indicates should be the goal for a paper, then I think we first need to come to a decision on some potentially breaking changes (#1318, #593, and #356 come to mind). |
@weiji14 Do we have a DOI for this upcoming release? |
Yep, just reserved it. DOI for PyGMT v0.5.0 will be |
Forum announcement being drafted at https://hackmd.io/@pygmt/v0-5-0_announcement. Feel free anyone to edit the document! |
Made some tiny modifications in the text and adjusted the link to the 0.5.0 changelog. All in all the whole text describes the new features etc. quite well. Great job! |
Thanks @michaelgrund! Do you or @willschlitzer want to go ahead and make the forum announcement? I think you both have moderator status now, so are able to post in the Announcements section. I can handle the Twitter tweet, and maybe someone can do the ResearchGate one. |
Forum announcement is done. |
Closing this since all the boxes are checked. Great work, everyone! 🎉 |
Release: v0.5.0
Scheduled Date: 2021/10/29
Pull request due date: 2021/10/27
Priority PRs/issues to complete prior to release
Before release:
grep --include="*.py" -r 'remove_version="v0.5.0"' pygmt
from the base of the repository to check if any deprecations and related tests should be removed in this versiondoc/_static/version_switch.js
for documentation switcherCITATION.cff
and BibTeX at https://github.com/GenericMappingTools/pygmt#citing-pygmtRelease:
After release:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: