3.38 release: changelog and deps #178178
3.38 release: changelog and deps #178178
Conversation
The blog link hasn't been created yet. I'm hoping to get it from @sfshaza2 by the end of the day.
|
This pull request was opened from and to a release candidate branch. This should only be done as part of the official Flutter release process. If you are attempting to make a regular contribution to the Flutter project, please close this PR and follow the instructions at Tree Hygiene for detailed instructions on contributing to Flutter. Reviewers: Use caution before merging pull requests to release branches. Ensure the proper procedure has been followed. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the CHANGELOG.md file to add a new section for the Flutter 3.38.0 release. The changes are straightforward, adding the new release information at the top of the file with links to the GitHub release tag and the official release notes. The update is consistent with the existing format of the changelog.
justinmc
added
the
autosubmit
|
autosubmit label was removed for flutter/flutter/178178, because - The status or check suite Linux plugin_test_android_variants has failed. Please fix the issues identified (or deflake) before re-applying this label.
|
auto-submit
bot
removed
the
autosubmit
|
Closing in favor of: #178256 |
My take on #178178 **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.
2 participants
No description provided.