Skip to content

Conversation

@MuellerSeb
Copy link
Member

This is the PR for the v1.5.0 release.

I just created a release candidate:
https://github.com/GeoStat-Framework/PyKrige/releases/tag/v1.5.0rc1

You can test it by installing:

pip install pykrige==1.5.0rc1

If you think there is still something missing, we can collect it here.

Release Notes

Installation

You can install pykrige with pip:

pip install pykrige

Documentation

The documentation can be found at: https://pykrige.readthedocs.io/

What's new?

New features

Changes

* tests on top-level; run against installed version

* make matplotlib optional

* add req files

* add cov file

* update travis

* update dependencies

* add scipy to build_wheel deps

* MacOS ssl fix attempt

* test: skip erroneous drift test (on win)

* update setup to use scm; demand cython

* setup: readme type rst

* update doc reqs

* rename doc->docs

* restructure doc

* adopt geostat doc style pt 1

* setup update docs path

* drop py2 support; __doc__ update

* add logo

* resize log (rst images not rendered correctly on GH)

* ignore auto-generated version file

* eliminate some doc errors

* tackle logo issue

* build doc against installed again

* travis: install wheel for cibuildwheel on linux

* travis: update packages

* travis: update wheel

* remove py2 rfs

* auditwheel bug needs to be fixed by manylinux

* bigger logo

* cok: use scipy blas and lapack directly

* remove lapack module; use scipy instead

* dont use raw in Readme

* tests: skip edk test only on windows

* DOC: update use of recommonmark [skip-ci]
Codeformatting with black; minor updates to be future prove
@MuellerSeb
Copy link
Member Author

From now on, there is also a Zenodo DOI for each release on Github:
https://zenodo.org/record/3738605

Do we want to include everyone as Author? If you give me your ORCID, I could create a .zenodo.json to automate the meta data. See here for example: https://github.com/GeoStat-Framework/GSTools/blob/master/.zenodo.json

@MuellerSeb MuellerSeb requested a review from rth April 2, 2020 18:11
@rth
Copy link
Contributor

rth commented Apr 2, 2020

Do we want to include everyone as Author?

Since there are ~10 contributors I think that's manageable.

Generally I think it's easier to develop on the master branch, and create release branches (e.g. v1.5.X) + tag for releases, as opposed to have a develop branch and sync between master and develop. That way users are more encouraged to look at most up to date code if they look on github. That's what numpy, scipy, pandas etc are doing.

I haven't reviewed in detail but since it's only a sync between branches LGTM.

Thanks for working on it.

@MuellerSeb
Copy link
Member Author

OK, I will create a zenodo file with appropriate meta data containing all authors (maintainers) and contributors.

ATM I am following this workflow (skipping release branches, since development is not that rapid):
img

I like the idea, that master always shows the latest release.

@rth
Copy link
Contributor

rth commented Apr 3, 2020

ATM I am following this workflow (skipping release branches, since development is not that rapid):

Yeah, that's git flow, I think trunk based development is easier (cf. e.g. https://hackernoon.com/trunk-based-development-vs-git-flow-b1b23044dfb and https://stackoverflow.com/a/35915110/1791279) and that's what scipy ecosystem generally does. But I agree it's a never ending discussion topic.

@MuellerSeb
Copy link
Member Author

Merging now. Thanks to all.
@rth I will update the conda-forge feedstock, but you will have to merge it, since you are the only maintainer ATM.

@MuellerSeb MuellerSeb merged commit 1a889a7 into master Apr 4, 2020
@rth
Copy link
Contributor

rth commented Apr 4, 2020

I will update the conda-forge feedstock, but you will have to merge it, since you are the only maintainer ATM.

No need to make a release PR, one should be made automatically by a bot once you push the release on PyPi. Please make a PR to add yourself to maintainers in meta.yaml there.

@MuellerSeb
Copy link
Member Author

@rth see #146

@bsmurphy
Copy link
Contributor

bsmurphy commented Apr 5, 2020

Sorry again for the slow response here, but this all looks good. Thanks for the good work @MuellerSeb and @rth

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants