#general
- e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:30 PMYou'll have to explictly say==0.0.83 - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:30 PMWhich I think is what we all want, latest stable by default, opt-in to master builds explicitly if you know what you're doing. - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:31 PMNot sure what you think of this @mammoth-pharmacist-54215 - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:32 PMAfaict the only extra burden on releaser is saying0.0.83 (which is 1.1.0 RC 1) - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:32 PMso in regards to to 1.0.1, my feeling is that it should be just fixes, no new features. - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:32 PMAck - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:32 PMignore that mis-speak - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:32 PMI know @fancy-queen-20734 is working on a couple of fixes we would like in 1.0.1 - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:33 PMregarding master, I mostly care about what shows up on pypi since that will cause confusion for our users… although it would be good if we remained consistent in some way for our own sanity - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:33 PMwe could call master 1.1.x and do releases like v1.1.0-rc1 - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:34 PMbranch name could stay as is until we cut the long term branch which I think is fine. - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:35 PM@limited-country-20626: you should listen to @mammoth-pharmacist-54215 - my ideas on releases, tags, branches are not typical and not in line with all the work done and agreed upon, I was just filling the silence - l
limited-country-20626
05/06/2016, 7:38 PMthanks to both for feedback. So, bump the version to 1.1.0 for today - l
limited-country-20626
05/06/2016, 7:38 PM? - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:39 PMI don't think that makes sense - this is not a 1.1.0 RC IIUC, it is 1.1.0.alpha or something, but I don't think we have any intention of this being a 1.1.0 semver RC - right @mammoth-pharmacist-54215 ? - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:40 PMwell its not a long term release as I understand is it or is this intended to be the 1.1.0 release - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:40 PMI’m okay with alpha or something similar - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:40 PMThis is why I think 0.0.NNN makes sense for master - l
limited-country-20626
05/06/2016, 7:41 PMalpha or 1.1.0-rc seems quite premature to me - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:41 PMit seems confusing to have the version in master (which is newer) be a lower version than what is released. - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:41 PMYes, but it is safe - which is why it appeals to me - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:41 PMAt any rate - this stuff needs to be sorted, needs to work correctly withpip install - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:42 PMAny I think it makes sense to establish a long-term admittance procedure - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:42 PMI've been on teams that used a spreadsheet in the past - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:42 PMcould be a folder/file checked into repo - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:42 PMBut folks should be writing down changes they want cherrypicked in some sane shared spot for release manager - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:43 PMagreed - l
limited-country-20626
05/06/2016, 7:43 PMMy understanding was that all 1.0.0 releases were done by Matt - should I be prepping a new 1.0.0 release today? AFAIK there are no promoted cherry-picks, although I could be way behind there - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
05/06/2016, 7:44 PMso my understanding for pip install is that RC’s aren’t installed by default you have to explicitly ask for the RC version. In other words if you put out an 1.1.0-rc1 and you do a pip install without specifying version you will get 1.0.0 - e
enough-analyst-54434
05/06/2016, 7:44 PMI'll step away now that conversation is flowing, but someone needs to own this fleshing out, and I think that's you two. I'll get back to owning CI