Closed aboucaud closed 7 years ago
Check the changelog (e.g. if nothing is removed, we still keep the header?), then merge. Then release 0.2.
I'll wait for @jorisvandenbossche before releasing 0.2 since I have never used versioneer
@jorisvandenbossche @aboucaud Maybe we should make version 0.1.1?
I think 0.2.0 is more logical instead of 0.1.1 since we added new functionality (0.1.x patch releases should only be for bug fixes), certainly if we state that we follow semantic versioning.
Using versioneer is not difficult, it is just making a git tag. But I will document the steps to make a release somewhere.
It's fine with me. I just want to make sure we can start communicating on our features, and that important ones don't get bundled with minor ones. The the upcoming features are:
1) Porting the ensembling from ramp-board to ramp-workflow. Besides it's useful, it will also be the last feature to make backend and starting kit testing identical, so hopefully testing will be less painful.
2) Launching ramp_test_submission
on AWS, directly from prompt. It's almost done, works, though advanced features would be interesting to work out.
:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (
master@6ba5470
). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #90 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 86.56%
=========================================
Files ? 68
Lines ? 2412
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 2088
Misses ? 324
Partials ? 0
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6ba5470...af28f4e. Read the comment docs.
Page with release checklist is here: https://github.com/paris-saclay-cds/ramp-workflow/wiki/Releasing-ramp-workflow
(it should be updated with uploading to pypi once we do this)
Added skeleton, @kegl please fill in the blanks