Also, one thing I would like to add is that the dependency issues we are seeing with the CI tests have been happening since this commit
https://github.com/apache/climate/commit/98020c9fe7654267d03 f8553f35af4ca9ed55952 Based on the raw logs from the CI tests, it seems like the dependencies are being downloaded but setuptools can't find them. We could revert this commit but that would be pointless anyway since we now also want to test for Python 3.x. Thus, solving this issue may be tied to CLIMATE-879 (put the conda recipe on conda-forge) and CLIMATE -874 (Remove Easy OCW and replace with a pure conda installation method). Only thing to keep in mind is that if we go down this route, we won't be able to have a fully functional CI test-suite for Python 3.x until AFTER the 1.2.0 package is uploaded. Thus, I think we will need to do before officially releasing 1.2.0: 1) Get 1.1.0 on conda-forge [0] 2) Make ocw compatible with podaacpy 1.4.0 [1] 3) Put 1.2.0 release candidate on PyPI AND THEN conda-forge 4) Update CI testing to download all packages via conda and fully deprecating Easy-OCW 5) If resolved, we are ready to release [0] https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/1784 [1] https://github.com/apache/climate/pull/411 What do you think? Thanks, Alex On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Goodman, Alexander (398K) < alexander.good...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Lewis, > > Agreed. In conjunction with this, I am working to make sure we have 1.1.0 > up on conda-forge before releasing 1.2.0. This would also be a good way to > test how we account for conda packaging in our release process, since once > this is done the only thing that we need to do to update the package is > bump up the version number in the recipe file after the new release is > published on PyPI, then making a PR to the feedstock to ensure the CI tests > pass. Without conda-forge, we'd have to go through the tedious process of > building from every recipe manually as I have already outlined in the wiki. > > Aside from this, CLIMATE-838 is the next major feature we have planned as > far as actual use cases for ocw are concerned. It's a major change though > so I don't know if that will be done in time for 1.2.0. When do you think > we should target to release 1.2.0? > > Thanks, > Alex > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:25 PM, lewis john mcgibbney <lewi...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> If you go to Jira you will see that I've moved all existing open >> unresolved >> issues to fix version 1.3.0. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLIMATE/?selectedTab= >> com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel >> This means that right now we have addressed 34/35 issues within the 1.2.0 >> development drive which is dynamite. >> I would like to ask the following >> >> 1. If you wish to address any issues in 1.2.0 then please set the fix >> version from 1.3.0 back to 1.2.0. >> 2. What do we need to address for the 1.2.0 release? >> >> For me stabilizing the build process (which seems to be broken as various >> packages cannot be located within Pypi) is the most serious pending issue. >> >> Additionally, I would really like to see CLIMATE-875 [0] Upgrade to >> Podaacpy 1.4.0 addressed. >> >> Thanks >> >> Lewis >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLIMATE-875 >> >> >> -- >> http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/ >> @hectorMcSpector >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmcgibbney >> > > > > -- > Alex Goodman > Data Scientist I > Science Data Modeling and Computing (398K) > Jet Propulsion Laboratory > California Institute of Technology > Tel: +1-818-354-6012 > -- Alex Goodman Data Scientist I Science Data Modeling and Computing (398K) Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Tel: +1-818-354-6012
