Integrated whatsnew for v3.1 release (rc0) #4285
Conversation
lib/iris/__init__.py
Outdated
| @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ def callback(cube, field, filename): | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| # Iris revision. | |||
| __version__ = "3.1.dev0" | |||
| __version__ = "3.1.0rc0" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused by this diff. You already changed the version string yesterday. The 3.1.x branch already has 3.1.0rc0(https://github.com/SciTools/iris/blob/v3.1.x/lib/iris/__init__.py#L106) so why is this trying to change is again?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see there are some conflicting files. Maybe try rebasing onto the 3.1.x branch ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I used the previous branch, so I think it's the probably squash+merge. I'll rebase onto 3.1.x
There was a problem hiding this comment.
.. yes, I think that fixed it
|
@lbdreyer sorry, it looks like I failed to bring some links across. |
docs/src/whatsnew/3.1.rst
Outdated
| Internal changes in v3.0.2 (27 May 2021) | ||
| ======================================== | ||
|
|
||
| #. `@jamesp`_ updated a test to the latest numpy version (:pull:`3977`) [``pre-v3.1.0``] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should these still have the pre-v3.1.0 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe include the note
Note that, the above contributions labelled with ``pre-v3.1.0`` are part of the forthcoming
Iris v3.1.0 release, but require to be included in this patch release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good spot !
I hadn't properly understood what these were there for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it means that these entries should be in the 'main' release part, not the bugfix sections.
Doing that now.
docs/src/whatsnew/3.1.rst
Outdated
| #. `@rcomer`_ modified test modules so they run consistently under ``pytest`` and | ||
| ``nose``, and also fixed some minor issues with :class:`~iris.time.PartialDateTime`. | ||
| (:pull:`4249`) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have lost the note:
Note that, we are forced to drop support for ``Python 3.6`` in this patch due to
the third-party package dependencies required by (:pull:`4222`).
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a note about this in the release highlights, so I thought that might be enough.
I don't think we really need to explain why : this note in the bugfix release was only there because it had changed requirements from the original v3.0.0. But now we are on to a new minor release that's no big deal.
| 3.0.4.rst | ||
| 3.0.3.rst | ||
| 3.0.2.rst | ||
| 3.0.1.rst |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pp-mo Do you know why we had separate what's news for each bug release?
Was it just there to draw attention to the fact that there multiple 3.0.x releases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know really.
However, I did find that we did not do this with the 2.2.1 bugfix release : there we just have a modified 2.2.rst (and no 2.2.1.rst)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, the 3.0.4.rst incorporates all the entries from the other 3
| |iris_version| |build_date| | ||
| *************************** | ||
| v3.1 (17 Aug 2021) [unreleased] | ||
| ******************************* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I notice for the Iris 3 rc we included a date:
https://scitools-iris.readthedocs.io/en/v3.0.0rc0/whatsnew/3.0.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry wasn't clear. I meant to say just a date no unreleased
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think that's effectively a preliminary date -- the date of the RC.
Which we would change again we we make it a full release
(imho)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've done the same, but left in the '[unreleased]' tag, because I thought that made sense..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You might also consider that it makes sense to label this with the 'rc0',
but, again, we haven't done so in the past
* main: (71 commits) Skip TestConstrainedLoad if data missing (SciTools#4319) Add 'Good First Issue' label to reasons an issue doesn't go stale (SciTools#4317) Gallery: simplify quiver example (SciTools#4120) Improve styling in a minor way in docs (SciTools#4314) bump version (SciTools#4310) Made clear we only test on Linux. (SciTools#4309) Updated environment lockfiles (SciTools#4308) Include Discussions in Getting Involved. (SciTools#4307) Fixed text to show as link. (SciTools#4305) [pre-commit.ci] pre-commit autoupdate (SciTools#4299) Updated environment lockfiles (SciTools#4298) cartopy feature download (SciTools#4304) Mesh Loading (AVD-1813) (SciTools#4262) reset whatsnew latest (SciTools#4288) Updated environment lockfiles (SciTools#4289) Update cube.py (SciTools#4287) Integrated whatsnew for v3.1 release (rc0) (SciTools#4285) Version changes and final whatsnew tweaks for 3v1rc0. (SciTools#4284) Missing whatsnew entries for 3.1 release. (SciTools#4283) Update CF standard name table to v77 (SciTools#4282) ...
🚀 Pull Request
Description
I think this replicates the way we have done it in the past : the "interim" separate whatsnew files 3.0..rst are combined into a single 3.1.rst covering all history since 3.0
My only precedent for this is what we did at v2.2.1
Consult Iris pull request check list