Finalise whatsnew and version string; update CI to fix. #4316
Conversation
* Fix broken ABF link * add cartopy downloader utility * update netcdf4-python link * explicitly specify features to download for ci * added whatsnew entry * update utility help * utility tidy * tidy utility * copy with cartopy script rename * update whatsnew to clarify as dev tool * push fix to cartopy * use cartopy master
pp-mo
changed the title
rcomer
left a comment
rcomer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. I particularly like the links from the highlights to see more details further down.
My only question is whether the "Deprecations" section should be removed, as there is nothing in it.
bjlittle
left a comment
bjlittle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pp-mo A few comments to service. Happy for you to push back on them.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that the final merge back from the v3.0.x release feature branch has not been included in the v3.1.x release branch.
This is a deal breaker for me. We need include those v3.0.x patch fixes into v3.1.x before we release.
Oh, I hadn't spotted that at all. So Personally, I have the impression that no-one has paid much attention to this one (i.e. the 'rc0'), and I'm inclined to just merge in 3.0.x and tag that as 3.1.0 straight away. |
|
Made changes addressing all the text points (I hope). Still awaiting: mergeback from 3.0.x |
I thought this was done. The last commit on
|
|
@pp-mo Okay, I finally understand what's happened here... and why I'm confused. Why did #4285 change the Those patches are separate releases and not part of the This will now be confusing post- Specifically, our GH Discussions... ... and all our patch release annotations for ... link to resources that have moved and look different in Also, from a release managers perspective we're also adding an extra step to the release process i.e., collapse the previous release history and blend it together, all of which requires to be reviewed and checked. Personally, I think we should break from the previous pattern of blending release history together. That was the advantage of leveraging However, there is perhaps a compromise here... For example, for the |
As explained there, essentially because we that is what we did to the 2.2.1 changes when making 2.3 |
|
@pp-mo Thanks for hanging-out so that we would align understanding - it was hard to easily clarify in prose 😄 |
3 participants
🚀 Pull Request
Description
Final changes prior to tagging v3.1
A docs-build is available here
Consult Iris pull request check list