Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updates for the 1.1.0+p1 release #236

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Updates for the 1.1.0+p1 release #236

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

tschaub
Copy link
Collaborator

@tschaub tschaub commented Jun 21, 2024

This includes fixes to the 1.1.0 release (#234). This is being tagged with build metadata p1. After creating this release, the website needs to be updated to host the most recent version of the spec and schema at the "clean" version while considering build metadata.

TODO:

  • [ ] update the test_data files to include the right version
  • [ ] update the release process to describe how to update the test_data

@@ -2,21 +2,22 @@

[[package]]
name = "attrs"
version = "23.1.0"
version = "23.2.0"
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Following the scripts readme, I ran poetry update. This resulted in the lockfile changes below. If we don't want this to happen, we should update that readme.

@tschaub tschaub mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2024
@cholmes
Copy link
Member

cholmes commented Jun 21, 2024

update the test_data files to include the right version

Did they go out in 1.1.0 with the wrong version? Or are you saying they'd get 1.1.0+p1 as the version?

@tschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tschaub commented Jun 21, 2024

Did they go out in 1.1.0 with the wrong version? Or are you saying they'd get 1.1.0+p1 as the version?

I was unsure if they were updated as part of the previous release to include the new dev version (1.2.0-dev, like with the other example data).

I see now that the test_data is generated with a new script that has yet another version of the version identifier in it. This means that the test_data will not get updated unless we update the release process to describe how to do that.

As part of #232 I think it would make sense to make it so the test data is generated with the version number from format-specs/schema.json - and ideally put in a place with a readme that describes how to install the required dependencies (like the scripts directory).

@tschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tschaub commented Jun 21, 2024

Here are the website changes to support build metadata in our release tags: geoparquet/geoparquet.github.io#59 (this may need additional changes after we push this tag)

@tschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tschaub commented Jun 21, 2024

I've pushed the v1.1.0+p1 tag and created a release.

The website has been updated (see geoparquet/geoparquet.github.io#59) to strip the build metadata when extracting the version from a tag (sorting to get the most recent based on semver).

As mentioned in the release notes, the version to use in the GeoParquet metadata is still 1.1.0.

The corrected spec is published here (over the old one): https://geoparquet.org/releases/v1.1.0/

Because we didn't delete the old tag, people can still get to the old and new spec via git. Validators and other clients should use the published version of the spec and metadata schema instead.

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @tschaub for streamlining this. Such a workflow with +p1 metadata sounds good to me.

For this PR, there is no longer an actual relevant diff?

@tschaub
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tschaub commented Jun 24, 2024

For this PR, there is no longer an actual relevant diff?

Yeah, the release branch was useful for making release-related changes, tagging the release, and then changing things back to dev versions. But we could close this without merging now.

@tschaub tschaub closed this Jun 24, 2024
@tschaub tschaub deleted the release-v1.1.0+p1 branch June 24, 2024 21:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants