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

First release #38

Open
relleums opened this issue Apr 9, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

First release #38

relleums opened this issue Apr 9, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@relleums
Copy link
Contributor

relleums commented Apr 9, 2019

We will have a first 'release' of the merlict-development-kit.

This should contain your most urgent requests which we are busy working on:

  • Continuous test-integration with travis
  • Measuring the code-coverage
  • one_source.py working again

I think the python-wrapper will have to wait for the next release.

What version-numbering-sheme shall we use? E.g. 1.0.0?
Shall we put the version-number into the C++ code? Or is it fine to have it only in the github-repo? I would prefer it not to be in the code.

@relleums relleums added this to the First release milestone Apr 9, 2019
@relleums
Copy link
Contributor Author

relleums commented Apr 9, 2019

Also the one_source.py should be part of the first release.

@dneise
Copy link

dneise commented Apr 9, 2019

If you prefer the version not to be in the code, then leave it out. But maybe it would be nice to have a small file called __version__ or VERSION to be in the main folder, which contains the version. This way .. a person who happens to have a tarball or zip of this project, can still see the version.

Once this project includes a setup.py file, and is pip installable, this file can be used by setup.py. This is how it is done e.g. in pyfact.
https://github.com/fact-project/pyfact/blob/master/setup.py#L3

But if you do not want the version in the codebase at all, that is also fine I assume

@dneise
Copy link

dneise commented Apr 9, 2019

I think the current master fulfills these criteria and could already be the first release.
Probably we'd like to streamline the README a little ... at least the stuff I wrote was more for you guys than for real users ... so maybe checking wording again and so on might be in order before releasing.

@dneise
Copy link

dneise commented Apr 9, 2019

I think "1.0.0" is perfectly fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants