-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 666
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 2.1.0 #3446
Comments
Would we want #3437 fixed for 2.1.0? It looks like a pretty annoying thing for anyone who's doing topology hacking for the common case to add chain information. |
Yeah #3440 is a bug fix that's ready to go so I've added it to the checklist. #3441 would be nice as it's a segfault which are generally nice to avoid. I think we're just stumbling around figuring out how/if to test that issue, but the fix is done at least. #3445 is a fairly minor addition that shouldn't be too hard to review? |
Is #2989 still under consideration for 2.1.0? It is tagged as so in the PR. |
No. Cython 3 is still in alpha releases, I'll push it to 2.2.0 but I think it might be a breaking change that'll have to be held off until 3.0.0. |
The XTC offset fixing seems complete, but I think the tests for it are probably going to be more/as complicated as the fix. I think it might have to get bumped. |
Thanks for keeping up with that one @richardjgowers - there's a couple of small PRs that could probably get fixed this week so I'm going to aim to release this weekend. |
when will 2.1 be released? |
@hima111997 We hope to release it soon. There are a couple of things we would like to fix before the release, sadly we all are quite busy. |
We've sat on this too long. I'm proposing a hard feature freeze of this Sunday - with a release on Monday (unless there's any game breaking bugs). @MDAnalysis/coredevs here are the things that need to be pushed:
#3527 is pretty important for us to deal with (otherwise we might not be able to build because of the extra |
If possible, I'd like #2857 to go in. |
I really want to get started on the rise process before the end of the day, is that a realistic time frame? |
It is mostly stuck by @orbeckst request for changes, that should be out of date. Otherwise, I guess I'll be good to change all the |
I've pinged @richardjgowers for a review, @orbeckst would you have time? I'll try to give it a review in a bit and we can just merge it. I'll yield on the deadline and just say "as long as it makes it in by midnight today". |
I re-reviewed #2857 and some of the older comments that looked out of date because of nearby code changes are still valid. It's only minor doc things, though. |
I won't have time to fix that by the end of today. Let's re-target for 2.2.0. |
I am ok with #2857 now, assuming that tests pass. |
Ok cool, let's get it merged and then I'll start the release process later this evening. |
Fixes #3446 * Complete release v2.1.0 * officially advertise py3.10 support
With the release of python 3.10, we should make a minor release that covers python 3.7 before we have to consider ditching it.
It's shorter than our proposed "maximum every 6 months" release schedule, but it wouldn't help to get this out quickly so we can move up in minimum supported python versions.
That being said - I know we agreed that we would stick with NEP29, but maybe we should be a bit lenient and do a release that spans 4 python versions when faced with these types of cases. Otherwise we'll have an MDAnalysis version out there that's not been explicitly tested against py3.10.
Thoughts @MDAnalysis/coredevs ?
The next question is, what needs to be done before the 2.1.0 release? Please raise things in the comments and I'll make a list here.
Things urgently needed:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: