-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Feature #2754 rc1_main_vX.Y #2755
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…ref branches (when applicable) for the first release candidate rather than waiting until the official release. Note that I deleted the push_release_branch.rst instructions since it's not needed. The preceeding instructions execute the push and these are redundant - even for METplus which has custom instructions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I need to review this more closely, but I think the instructions get mucked up in terms of version numbers, at least for the METplus Development steps.
I think additional changes are needed to:
- In the METplus Development
Update Version Number for Release
step, we should not update the version number if creating an rc1 release. The version gets updated in the main_vX.Y-ref branch later and also gets updated in the develop branch later. - In the METplus Development
Create Release Reference Branch
sub-stepUpdate the version number
, we may want to update the example to include an-rc1
version since this step should only be run for that version. - In METplus Development
Update Version on Develop Branch
, if we just created an rc1 release, the version number in develop should reflect development towardsbeta1
for the next release after the one we are currently developing towards.
This may apply to other release instructions as well.
I note that instructions reference a file named Checking the repos I see that:
We have custom instructions for updating the version numbers for MET and METplus.
@jprestop and @bikegeek can you please review this situation and advise? Can we handle the version definition consistently across all the METplus-Analysis repositories? Or is there a good reason for them to be different? |
…h the names of the actual fields on GitHub.
…ly run for the rc1 release.
@JohnHalleyGotway I noticed these differences when I was cutting the releases and created this issue to try to make them more consistent Update release notes for METplus components #2737. |
@georgemccabe thanks for taking a look. I did just update the METplus example to switch from
However, I don't really appreciate the intricacies of when/where you want Please feel free to check out this feature branch and directly modify it to update the |
…r rc1 release. Update METplus Official release instructions to use main branch and update version number for official release since main branch will contain -rcN version numbers
…actored to make the version file path a variable and include the same update_version_on_develop.rst file for METplus, METcalcpy, METdataio, METplotpy, and METviewer
I made a number of changes to:
Note there is some duplication in the component-specific instructions for update_version_on_develop.rst that could be consolidated using variables, but I did not make those changes. |
Note that I deleted the
push_release_branch.rst
instructions since it's not needed. The preceeding instructions execute the push and this is redundant - even for METplus which has custom instructions.Pull Request Testing
Describe testing already performed for these changes:
Ran
make clean html
to make sure the docs build.Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
Please review updated docs for clarity and accuracy:
https://metplus.readthedocs.io/en/feature_2754_rc1_main_vx.y/Release_Guide/index.html
Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]
Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]
None needed.
Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
Do these changes introduce new SonarQube findings? [No]
If yes, please describe:
Please complete this pull request review by [Wed 10/30/24].
Pull Request Checklist
See the METplus Workflow for details.
Select: Reviewer(s) and Development issue
Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
Select: Coordinated METplus-X.Y Support project for bugfix releases or METplus-Wrappers-X.Y.Z Development project for official releases