search

imr-framework / pypulseq

Pulseq in Python
https://pypulseq.readthedocs.io
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
117 stars 63 forks source link

Release 1.4.2 #177

Closed schuenke closed 3 months ago

schuenke commented 4 months ago

This is meant as the final PR before the release of version 1.4.2

The changelog is quite messy, so if nobody wants to create a more useful one, I would simply use the autogenerated changelog from GitHub, which I cleaned from temporary changes. Currently it would look like this:

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: https://github.com/imr-framework/pypulseq/compare/1.4.0...1.4.1

schuenke commented 4 months ago

I would vote to remove the citations section from the Readme. Currently only citations until 2022 are included, but the section is already quite prominent. With all citations from 2022, 2023, 2024 this will get worse and keeping the list up to date is unnecessary work IMO.

btasdelen commented 3 months ago

@schuenke I agree that citations can be removed. I would argue that contributors can also be removed, as they are already shown by GitHub automatically.

FrankZijlstra commented 3 months ago

The auto-generated changelog looks fine to me. I agree on removing citations, it would be hard to keep up-to-date anyway. Removing contributors also seems fine.

One thing to consider about the version number and how we manage it going forward: the package version number (major, minor, revision) is written to the generated .seq files. I'm not 100% certain if any interpreter currently uses this to change any behaviour, but it could in theory have an effect. So if we start deviating from the Matlab Pulseq version numbers, we may need to keep a separate version number for the .seq file format.

FrankZijlstra commented 3 months ago

Apart from merging the last commits to the new release 1.4.1, are there any objections to going forward with this? Things left to do, etc?

schuenke commented 3 months ago

Apart from merging the last commits to the new release 1.4.1, are there any objections to going forward with this? Things left to do, etc?

I don't think so. As suggested, I removed the contributors list from the README file. Further, I replaced the references in the beginning of the file with a link to the references section and added Philips to the list of supported hardware.

Let's get your latest bug fix merged and then we should be good to go.

UPDATE: while writing this, I realized that some tests seem to fail... lets check this...

FrankZijlstra commented 3 months ago

Failing tests were fixed by #180

schuenke commented 3 months ago

I think we are now finally good to go now. Do we wanna stick with 1.4.1 now or directly jump to 1.4.2 to mirror the current Pulseq version? I think this is the last thing to decide 😁

aTrotier commented 3 months ago

Great work! This PR fixes a lot of incompatibility issues with sigpy and numpy 2.0 :)