Release 3.35.0 - Githubissues

conda-forge / conda-smithy

The tool for managing conda-forge feedstocks.

https://conda-forge.org/

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

149 stars 176 forks source link

Release 3.35.0 #1915

Closed jakirkham closed 5 months ago

jakirkham commented 5 months ago

As pointed out by @jaimergp, to close out the macOS-11 Azure image deprecation ( https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io/issues/2067 ), we need a conda-smithy release

Looking at the changes since the last release, appears we have the following items:

Do not populate c_stdlib{,_version} in CI configs that don't need them (#1908)
Added linter rules for providing hints about updating to new stdlib-functionality (#1909)
Github Actions: Explicitly use macos-13 for osx-64 runners. (#1913)
Github Actions: Bump to setup-miniconda@v3 on Windows builds. (#1913)
Azure Pipelines: bump default macOS runners vmImage value to macos-12. (#1914)

Looks like this could make a good 3.35.0 release

Thoughts @conda-forge/core ?

h-vetinari commented 5 months ago

Should wait for #1912

jakirkham commented 5 months ago

It appears that is marked as draft with some suggestions made. Do we think we can get it ready to go?

If not, are we ok doing another release when it is ready?

h-vetinari commented 5 months ago

Yes, and I haven't had a time to respond to them yet, because the comments arrived in the middle of the night for me. I'm asking you to wait a day or two.

beckermr commented 5 months ago

A friendly reminder that smithy releases are basically free. We can make a release now and then again in a few days if we want.

h-vetinari commented 5 months ago

Yes, sure. But there's effort involved, rollbacks if anything breaks, etc., and in practice it happens only every couple of weeks.

In other words, if it's so free, why ask for input from core about a release? Is rubber-stamping the only option here? I don't get what the urgency is that waiting 1-2 days is somehow a burden.

beckermr commented 5 months ago

I have no urgency, just wanted to point it out in case others felt a need to go ahead.

h-vetinari commented 5 months ago

Should wait for #1912

The issue (and thus the need for the PR) has been resolved, please feel free to go ahead with the release from my side. Thanks for the time it took to figure that one out.

beckermr commented 5 months ago

done! I had to fix the rever configuration and made a push straight to main to get the release to go ahead.