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

MAINT: Updates to dependencies #227

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023
Merged

MAINT: Updates to dependencies #227

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023

Conversation

larsoner
Copy link
Member

Draft until we can actually change to 1.6, just making sure stuff is green in the meantime

@larsoner larsoner changed the title MAINT: Update to 1.6 MAINT: Updates to dependencies Nov 20, 2023
@larsoner larsoner marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2023 19:50
- mne-bids =0.13.0
- mne-bids =0.14
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc @sappelhoff it seems like something went a bit off with the latest mne-bids release on conda-forge as it's 0.14 not 0.14.0. It's no problem here but figured you might want to look into this as it seems non-standard

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the ping, but I don't think I understand the problem 🤔 AFAIK we always had versions like this:

I.e., we drop the trailing patch version of .0 if it is a zero, and only append if it is >= .1

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like it might be non-standard behavior to do that. Or at least I noticed that MNE-BIDS is the only package in this list that versions that way. Based on a tiny bit of SemVer reading just now it sounds like it's better in general to have the .0 at the end if it's not a pain to add it

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good point, thanks. I believe we took the versioning system from mne-python though --> isn't that how releases were usually done? The history seems to agree for mne versions <0.17.

It seems like we've missed a "change" in how versions are being done at mne, because since about 0.17 (it's inconsistent on pypi and github), there is always the .0 patch addendum.

cc @hoechenberger @jasmainak @agramfort

I am not sure what to do now. Shall we just adjust the mne-bids versioning protocol for future versions? So far we haven't had any issues with the current scheme.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we ever did a patch release for MNE-BIDS, or did we? I'm okay with leaving things as they are, i.e., just MAJOR.MINOR

In fact, we could even drop the 0. and just use current MINOR as the only (MAJOR) version number, would be closer to SemVer anyway :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, we had MNE-BIDS 0.11.1 once :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we ever did a patch release for MNE-BIDS, or did we

we do have two patch releases, one of them being: https://github.com/mne-tools/mne-bids/releases/tag/v0.11.1

I am +1 to adding the .0 from now on, and being more semver-ish

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sounds good to me!!

@larsoner larsoner enabled auto-merge (squash) November 20, 2023 19:51
@larsoner larsoner merged commit e977073 into mne-tools:main Nov 20, 2023
13 checks passed
@larsoner larsoner deleted the 1.6 branch November 20, 2023 20:06
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants