Release 0.99 #5291

ethomson · 2019-11-01T17:47:24Z

I want to release an 0.99 in advance of a 1.0.

This is basically a 1.0 release candidate but we have historically not seen a lot of people installing "release candidates" in production and using them seriously. We want Serious Work on this release candidate, so let's call it an 0.99, and a real release.

After that, I propose that we take a branch for 1.0 and keep working in master on post-1.0 work.

What else are we waiting on for 0.99:

Cut:
~~#5286 - this is an annoying bug if you hit it but it's very rare, so I'm tempted to just kick it out to post-1.0~~

lolgear · 2019-11-02T10:07:30Z

@ethomson
Hi!

Annoying issue Last part of stash message with a lot of \n passed to next read oid function. #5262 is fixed in PR reflogs: fix behaviour around reflogs with newlines #5275.

Could you also include this PR in this release?

ethomson · 2019-11-02T12:36:50Z

@lolgear Done. Thanks!

pks-t · 2019-11-05T10:23:42Z

Sounds good to me. We're long overdue for a new release anyway, and there has been quite a lot of work since the last one. I'll make sure to have another go at #5123 this week to get it merged. Not sure whether I can provide valuable input for #5285 or 5286, but I'll see.

I think we should aim to get #5282 merged, too, and maybe even #5243. Otherwise I'm fine.

tiennou · 2019-11-05T12:24:25Z

Here's my "nomination" list I would have personally liked:

Hook support #4620, to let users see the hook support, and maybe have some more supported ones soon ?
fetch: pass negotiation data around as a struct #5105, shallow-fetch support preparation, a small one that takes on too much for its own post-1.0 good.
Fix reference renaming reflog #4316, for the incomplete reflogs and data destruction bug.
edit [WIP] libssh backend #5253, which I'll try to resume work on, but I'm afraid would need a hard "crazy SSH setup" testing, which I can't afford, to test "keyboard-interactively". It's not even clear if it can be done non-API-breakingly…

lolgear · 2020-01-07T21:23:00Z

@ethomson
Hi in 2020 :)
Is there a plan to make a release soon?

ethomson · 2020-01-12T12:26:48Z

I've updated this with more recent changes and authors (as of cc4f4cbea48ac00a5edec1b3570ac3d2ef10fe77).

pks-t · 2020-01-24T09:05:32Z

Is there a plan to make a release soon?

The final piece we're waiting on is #5286. It's probably going to get merged soonish, after which we'll wait one or two weeks to let it settle before we release v0.99.

ethomson · 2020-02-01T13:26:50Z

@pks-t am i okay to merge this or would it break your release script with the version updates?

pks-t · 2020-02-01T17:16:49Z

@pks-t am i okay to merge this or would it break your release script with the version updates?

You mean with the autors amended? That's fine, the script currently only searches until the next version section and includes everything between current and previous header. Would mean that these authors are part of the release notes, but I consider it a good thing to give credit where credit is due.

Anyway, one thing I notice is that my scripting is currently too strict. It verifies that for a version X, that the release section's previous release is X-1. So e.g. for v0.27.1 it would be v0.27.0 or v0.27, for v0.28 it would be v0.27.x. With the jump to v0.99 we're breaking this assumption.

Furthermore, the current assumption is that the soversion matches our minor version, which obviously also breaks with v0.99. Guess I should just remove that check altogether and only verify MAJOR/MINOR/REVISION. Anyway, I guess I'll fine tune the release script anyway as soon as we're ready to go, and a second pair of eyes would be a good thing, too.

pks-t · 2020-02-01T17:19:23Z

Anyway, I guess I'll fine tune the release script anyway as soon as we're ready to go, and a second pair of eyes would be a good thing, too.

Ah, didn't see you've done a review already.

ethomson · 2020-02-02T12:43:19Z

You mean with the autors amended?

I was worried about the version updates that I'd done in include/git2/version.h.

pks-t · 2020-02-03T06:50:53Z

On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 04:43:20AM -0800, Edward Thomson wrote: > You mean with the autors amended? I was worried about the version updates that I'd done in `include/git2/version.h`.

You can always run the script with "--dryrun". It will tell if there's anything it doesn't like, but won't do any uploading stuff. Anyway, I'll update the script to loosen the version check for our changelog and use the MAJOR.MINOR soversion.

pks-t · 2020-02-03T07:05:43Z

include/git2/version.h

 #define LIBGIT2_VER_REVISION 0
 #define LIBGIT2_VER_PATCH 0

-#define LIBGIT2_SOVERSION 28
+#define LIBGIT2_SOVERSION "0.99"


Hum. Any reason why we don't go all the way and say "0.99.0", matching LIBGIT2_VERSION?

I don't think that we want our soversion to include teeny version numbers - IMO, we shouldn't be making ABI incompatible changes in teeny releases. Are there other considerations that we should be thinking about?

With this change, we also get a nice set up of our library links on the filesystem:

1852 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 1895388 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.0.99.0.dylib* 0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 20 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.0.99.dylib@ -> libgit2.0.99.0.dylib 0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 18 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.dylib@ -> libgit2.0.99.dylib

pks-t · 2020-02-03T12:02:57Z

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:53:02AM -0800, Edward Thomson wrote: ethomson commented on this pull request. > #define LIBGIT2_VER_REVISION 0 #define LIBGIT2_VER_PATCH 0 -#define LIBGIT2_SOVERSION 28 +#define LIBGIT2_SOVERSION "0.99" I don't think that we want our soversion to include teeny version numbers - IMO, we shouldn't be making ABI incompatible changes in teeny releases. Are there other considerations that we should be thinking about? With this change, we also get a nice set up of our library links on the filesystem: ``` 1852 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 1895388 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.0.99.0.dylib* 0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 20 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.0.99.dylib@ -> libgit2.0.99.0.dylib 0 lrwxr-xr-x 1 ethomson staff 18 Feb 3 10:51 libgit2.dylib@ -> libgit2.0.99.dylib

Fair enough. Quoting CMake's documentation [1]: For shared libraries and executables on Windows the VERSION attribute is parsed to extract a <major>.<minor> version number. These numbers are used as the image version of the binary. So CMake already expects "major.minor", which is another argument in favor of leaving out "revision". I've updated the release script to reflect that. [1]: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.15/prop_tgt/SOVERSION.html

pks-t · 2020-02-03T12:05:48Z

docs/changelog.md

@@ -1,5 +1,283 @@
-v0.28 + 1
+v0.99
 ---------


The script expects a newline between "----" and the body and complains if it doesn't find it. Initially, I've also had a check that verifies that section header and version are of equal lengths, but I've dropped that

pks-t

One can really tell that this is a huge release when skimming release notes alone takes several minutes. Anyway, looks good to me!

Give the release a name, "Torschlusspanik" (the fear that time is running out to act). Indeed, the time is running out for changes to be included in v1.0.

This commit also switches our SOVERSION to be "$MAJOR.$MINOR" instead of "$MINOR", only. This is in preparation of v1.0, where the previous scheme would've stopped working in an obvious way.

pks-t · 2020-02-19T10:05:29Z

I've made one amendment to fix up the missing newline after the version header in our changelog. While at it, I've squashed commits so that we only have one for our changelog and one for bumping the version.

tiennou mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2019

"Generic" repository layout #5296

Open

ethomson force-pushed the ethomson/0_99 branch from fc8f3fe to 2948c32 Compare January 12, 2020 11:43

ethomson force-pushed the ethomson/0_99 branch from 6abffe6 to f20c0cf Compare January 18, 2020 16:15

ethomson force-pushed the ethomson/0_99 branch from f20c0cf to 11de7f6 Compare January 24, 2020 21:51

pks-t reviewed Feb 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

ethomson mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2020

Tracking: Release 0.99 #5407

Closed

3 tasks

pks-t approved these changes Feb 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

ethomson added 2 commits February 19, 2020 11:02

docs: update changelog for v0.99

a552c10

Give the release a name, "Torschlusspanik" (the fear that time is running out to act). Indeed, the time is running out for changes to be included in v1.0.

version: update the version number to v0.99

70062e2

This commit also switches our SOVERSION to be "$MAJOR.$MINOR" instead of "$MINOR", only. This is in preparation of v1.0, where the previous scheme would've stopped working in an obvious way.

pks-t force-pushed the ethomson/0_99 branch from 75ed0f4 to 70062e2 Compare February 19, 2020 10:04

pks-t merged commit 1722390 into master Feb 19, 2020

pks-t deleted the ethomson/0_99 branch February 19, 2020 10:27

implausible mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2020

Bump libgit2 to v0.99 nodegit/nodegit#1757

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Release 0.99 #5291

Release 0.99 #5291

ethomson commented Nov 1, 2019 •

edited

lolgear commented Nov 2, 2019 •

edited

ethomson commented Nov 2, 2019

pks-t commented Nov 5, 2019

tiennou commented Nov 5, 2019 •

edited

lolgear commented Jan 7, 2020

ethomson commented Jan 12, 2020

pks-t commented Jan 24, 2020

ethomson commented Feb 1, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 1, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 1, 2020

ethomson commented Feb 2, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 3, 2020 via email

pks-t Feb 3, 2020

ethomson Feb 3, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 3, 2020 via email

pks-t Feb 3, 2020

pks-t left a comment

pks-t commented Feb 19, 2020

Release 0.99 #5291

Release 0.99 #5291

Conversation

ethomson commented Nov 1, 2019 • edited

lolgear commented Nov 2, 2019 • edited

ethomson commented Nov 2, 2019

pks-t commented Nov 5, 2019

tiennou commented Nov 5, 2019 • edited

lolgear commented Jan 7, 2020

ethomson commented Jan 12, 2020

pks-t commented Jan 24, 2020

ethomson commented Feb 1, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 1, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 1, 2020

ethomson commented Feb 2, 2020

pks-t commented Feb 3, 2020 via email

pks-t Feb 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ethomson Feb 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pks-t commented Feb 3, 2020 via email

pks-t Feb 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pks-t left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pks-t commented Feb 19, 2020

ethomson commented Nov 1, 2019 •

edited

lolgear commented Nov 2, 2019 •

edited

tiennou commented Nov 5, 2019 •

edited