Update version, uses annotation and copyright year

[casella]

This PR updates all version and uses annotation to 4.1.0. It also updates copyright dates to 2024. Finally, it removes a spurious version annotation in a sub-package.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@beutlich @HansOlsson @maltelenz @henrikt-ma can you please review the changes . Thankyou

[HansOlsson]

@beutlich @HansOlsson @maltelenz @henrikt-ma can you please review the changes . Thankyou

I think it would be good to first address the current comments, and then ask for a review.

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@beutlich @HansOlsson @henrikt-ma @maltelenz we have addressed the changes mentioned , can you please go through the changes.

Thankyou

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@HansOlsson so once we get the approval and this is merged to the master , shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

[HansOlsson]

@HansOlsson so once we get the approval and this is merged to the master , shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

Could possibly do, but I would strongly prefer if #4256 #4189 and #4027 were also merged (and optionally #4204 ). And I assume others have similar considerations. It's a constant problem that we don't get the reviews.

[tobolar]

And I assume others have similar considerations.

From my side, https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/pull/4229 (and #3406 but this is a too big for now :-( )

[HansOlsson]

@HansOlsson so once we get the approval and this is merged to the master , shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

Could possibly do, but I would strongly prefer if #4256 #4189 and #4027 were also merged (and optionally #4204 ). And I assume others have similar considerations. It's a constant problem that we don't get the reviews.

To clarify why I think this matters:

• After we have split off the maintenance branch it will be even more work to handle those PRs; with reviews for two different branches (master and maint). Thus by pushing work forward we are creating more work.

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@HansOlsson so once we get the approval and this is merged to the master , shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

Could possibly do, but I would strongly prefer if #4256 #4189 and #4027 were also merged (and optionally #4204 ). And I assume others have similar considerations. It's a constant problem that we don't get the reviews.

To clarify why I think this matters:

• After we have split off the maintenance branch it will be even more work to handle those PRs; with reviews for two different branches (master and maint). Thus by pushing work forward we are creating more work.

We have pinged reviewers on those tickets, but not sure if we can expect a timely response. Should we proceed ahead with the branching to stick to the schedule or wait till Monday or at least till later today?

[beutlich]

And I assume others have similar considerations.

From my side: #3700, #3999, #4250, #4251, #4252, #4259.

[beutlich]

shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

What about the 40+ open issues targeting the 4.1.0 milestone (even the already approved ones)?

[arunkumar-narasimhan]

shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

What about the 40+ open issues targeting the 4.1.0 milestone (even the already approved ones)?

I have merged the approved ones, #3987 appears to be running checks at the moment, so will check back again.

[beutlich]

shall I branch out maint/4.1.x and then tagout as v4.1.0-alpha.1?

What about the 40+ open issues targeting the 4.1.0 milestone (even the already approved ones)?

I have merged the approved ones, #3987 appears to be running checks at the moment, so will check back again.

No, the PR was older than 90 days, such that the (green) check results got removed by CI. It helps to rebase the branch to trigger a CI run again: -> Update with rebase, see https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/pull/4177#issuecomment-1669884296

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

I have committed the suggestion from @HansOlsson and @beutlich we can do the squash and Merge option at the github itself while merging the PR.

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@maltelenz @HansOlsson @beutlich @GallLeo since we added one commit few minutes before we are in need of further approvals . can you please review the changes . Thankyou

[HansOlsson]

@maltelenz @HansOlsson @beutlich @GallLeo since we added one commit few minutes before we are in need of further approvals . can you please review the changes . Thankyou

You have to update the release part as well for 4_1_0.

[HansOlsson]

@maltelenz @HansOlsson @beutlich @GallLeo since we added one commit few minutes before we are in need of further approvals . can you please review the changes . Thankyou

You have to update the release part as well for 4_1_0.

Specifically the following two should be Version_4_1_0 instead of Version_X_Y_0

https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/blob/dc6bac0b4d5331b9bc52315f1d4a346faa721fbc/Modelica/package.mo#L2428 https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/blob/dc6bac0b4d5331b9bc52315f1d4a346faa721fbc/Modelica/package.mo#L2509

[beutlich]

You have to update the release part as well for 4_1_0.

Done in dedicated PR #4251.

[HansOlsson]

You have to update the release part as well for 4_1_0.

Done in dedicated PR #4251.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was that messy.

4251 renames Version_X_Y_0 to Version_4_1_0.

This PR changes the href from Version_X_Y_0 to Version_4_1_0.

If both are merged close together in time I guess it will be ok.

[Harisankar-Allimangalath]

@casella @beutlich , so we are planning to move ahead and branch out the maintenance and further procedures today itself .Do you have any suggestions over that ?

Thankyou