Closed odow closed 4 months ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 98.19%. Comparing base (
2978c32
) to head (ee5fdbc
). Report is 2 commits behind head on master.:exclamation: Current head ee5fdbc differs from pull request most recent head 01be76c
Please upload reports for the commit 01be76c to get more accurate results.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Here's a draft Discourse post:
Dear all,
We are pleased to announce the release of Convex.jl v0.16.0:
https://github.com/jump-dev/Convex.jl
This release of Convex involved a substantial internal rewrite of Convex.jl to
integrate better with MathOptInterface. The result is a faster, simpler, and
more maintainable package that is nearly ready for a 1.0 release.
Detailed release notes are available at: https://jump.dev/Convex.jl/dev/release_notes/
Most of the very large number of changes affect only the internal representation
of Convex.jl models. However, some user-facing breakage was unavoidable.
In most cases, informative errors and deprecation warnings will be thrown, but
there are two subtle changes to be aware of. Compared to version 0.15.4:
* The sign of the dual on a `a <= b` constraint is now reversed, so that it now
matches the conventions in MathOptInterface. We decided to make this change
because the previous convention was non-standard and had a high potential for
incorrect usage.
* Scalar row indexing like `x[i, :]` now produces a column vector instead of a
row vector. This matches the conventions in Julia Base, but it is a breaking
change because `x[i, :] * x[j, :]'` used to be the inner product; now it is
the outer product. We decided to make this change because the previous
indexing was non-standard and had a high potential for incorrect usage.
If you need help updating, please comment below, start a new forum post, or open
a GitHub issue.
Cheers,
Benoit (@blegat), Eric (@ericphanson), and Oscar (@odow)
I'll wait for @blegat to wake up to confirm
I found two new issues #683 and #682 but neither are regressions from v0.15.4 (both are present there too) so I think they can be fixed in a patch release post-v0.16.0.
I'm not going to wait for #685. I'll merge and tag this once CI passes.
Approved by: