Closed lkarthee closed 7 months ago
Release candidates don't have the drivers - https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/releases/tag/apache-arrow-adbc-0.11.0-rc0 does not have any artefacts.
We should not use rc build tags in update.exs ?
I think the drives were indeed there when we released v0.3.0, https://github.com/elixir-explorer/adbc/actions/runs/8497595927/job/23276329142#step:5:278, otherwise mix test
wouldn't success on CI. It's likely that arrow-adbc changed the URL after that. 🤔
Other than that, this PR looks good to me!
True, that's what I was thinking. Did they rename 0.11.0-rc0 to 0.11.0 ? I made the observation after looking at their old rc releases - hence my suggestion that we should not use rc tags.
Did they rename 0.11.0-rc0 to 0.11.0?
Probably this was what happened. 0.11.0-rc0 is now officially the first version of 0.11.0. These binaries didn't appear to be updated on that page.
hence my suggestion that we should not use rc tags.
Or we can name the pre-released rc versions, like 0.11.0-rc1, in something like v0.3.2-rc1 in the future. So it's also a pre-release version on hex.pm.
I don’t think we need to track releases that closely unless we need to test a feature, so I would say we should track releases only and ignore pre.
fixes #60