Skip to content
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

Next versioned release #310

Closed
wemeetagain opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 8 comments
Closed

Next versioned release #310

wemeetagain opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 8 comments

Comments

@wemeetagain
Copy link

Curious when the next release here will be?
Have any of the maintainers here discussed what the release cadence will be moving forward?

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

I tried to get one going, but we were waiting on the next version of consensus-specs, and its kind of blocking so I may just have to make one. I'd like one before merging all the deneb content...

@mcdee
Copy link
Contributor

mcdee commented Apr 17, 2023

Sounds like we need to kick ethereum/consensus-specs#3323 - I've dropped a note in there.

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

I had bigger fish to fry, but yes, thanks for commenting. Alternatively we can ship and reference the spec RC...

@mcdee
Copy link
Contributor

mcdee commented Apr 18, 2023

There is now a 1.3.0 release for the consensus specs, so we should be able to release.

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

slightly off-topic but what is the reason releases in this repo are blocked on releases from the cl-specs repo?

@ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

for future hard forks, we may want to follow the same pattern w/ having pre-releases like the CL specs, if we in fact want to couple them together

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

Not completely off topic. We were looking for a capella spec to release cleanly and keep deneb separate, we may have to just have a perpetual mess in the apis if we can't release along spec lines...

The option we went with this time was get all of capella in without all of the deneb endpoints (they were previously named EIP which was particularly problematic).

If the forks are named correctly, I'd be ok with having partial 'deneb' stuff in a point release, but wasn't happy to have codes like EIP4844 in an actual release...

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

released! Closing ticket.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants