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

what's needed for a 2.0 release? #174

Closed
ctb opened this issue Apr 16, 2017 · 16 comments
Closed

what's needed for a 2.0 release? #174

ctb opened this issue Apr 16, 2017 · 16 comments

Comments

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor

ctb commented Apr 16, 2017

@brooksph and @taylorreiter both think it's time to get the new functionality out there. what's needed for a 2.0 release?

I think we kinda need to wait for a khmer release given our dependency there.

I'd like to do another JOSS paper but that can be 2.0.1 or something.

@brooksph
Copy link
Contributor

brooksph commented Apr 17, 2017

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Apr 18, 2017

@luizirber
Copy link
Member

luizirber commented Apr 18, 2017

I created a project to track this: https://github.com/dib-lab/sourmash/projects/1

I would also like to add

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented May 18, 2017

Also

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented May 19, 2017

also:

@luizirber
Copy link
Member

luizirber commented Jun 3, 2017

Should we try to tick as many boxes as possible from this checklist? http://python.apichecklist.com/
(probably it's better to make it a goal for 3.0?)

@taylorreiter
Copy link
Contributor

sourmash lca output is compatible with krona. I don't think it's useful to have a krona visual for gather output.

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Feb 18, 2018

(Everything above that was unchecked was transferred into this issue)

Python cleanup/new functionality

Documentation

Minor new functionality/fixes

Due diligence

Punt to 3.x (proposed)

Other release-level work

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Jan 9, 2019

For the 2.0 release, it looks like we need --

and that's it!

Then finish and merge #592, and then cut a release, I think?

After that I'd like to submit 2.0.0 to JOSS along with all the other stuff we're writing up.

@luizirber
Copy link
Member

I think we should merge #615 before 2.0 too

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Jan 10, 2019

ok, let me know when it's ready!

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Jan 12, 2019

all done!

now working on final stuff, #622 author list and #623 change logs/release notes.

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Jan 13, 2019

#607 removes a bunch of outdated files. And we'll need to merge #592 right at the time of 2.0 release.

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Feb 23, 2019

ok, I think we're down to:

and then I think that's that!

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Feb 23, 2019

I mean, after that I want to submit to JOSS too :)

@ctb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ctb commented Mar 9, 2019

looks like author list is it!

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants