Skip to content

Conversation

beutlich
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@beutlich beutlich requested review from casella and AHaumer June 10, 2025 18:47
@AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor

AHaumer commented Jun 10, 2025

ok so far ... but shouldn't 4.1.0 be tagged (and not touched any more) with these dates, and then changing the version number in master to 4.2.0 (#4659)?
Sorry now I've seen; The tag has coerrect dates.

We definitely need some automatism for these things!

AHaumer added a commit to AHaumer/ModelicaStandardLibrary that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@AHaumer AHaumer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In MAP-Lib we decided the next relase will be 4.2.0 in about 1 year.
A patch 4.1.1 will be released only if severe bugs are reported.
Naming the development version same as the latest release is misleading.
The dates are ok of course.
"4.2.0 dev" would be easy to understand (this is my PR #4659)
And: For heavens sake include an empty table for the next release notes (also in #4659)!

@AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor

AHaumer commented Jun 13, 2025

If @casella overrides me, the master version shall be named 4.1.0.
But: I'll never accept this PR without an empty release notes table!!!
If the name "4.2.0 dev" is acceptec within MAP-Lib, we could use #4659

@beutlich beutlich force-pushed the bump-latest-version branch from 318a39d to b654a8f Compare July 20, 2025 20:14
@beutlich beutlich requested a review from MartinOtter July 20, 2025 20:14
@AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor

AHaumer commented Sep 12, 2025

#4659 will be used instead.
There is agreement that the development branch is named 4.2.0.
And: There is the table missing for the release notes -> closed without merging.

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.

2 participants