Skip to content

v0.12.0 release planning #2407

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

Closed
kandersolar opened this issue Mar 14, 2025 · 8 comments · Fixed by #2413
Closed

v0.12.0 release planning #2407

kandersolar opened this issue Mar 14, 2025 · 8 comments · Fixed by #2413
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member

The v0.11.3 milestone is cleared out and the release is ready to finalize. Along the way, we've merged some PRs including what we're calling breaking changes:

Breaking Changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* The pvlib.location.Location.pytz attribute is now read only. The
pytz attribute is now set internally to be consistent with the
pvlib.location.Location.tz attribute. (:issue:`2340`, :pull:`2341`)
* Users must now provide ModelChain.spectral_model, or the 'no_loss' spectral
model is assumed. pvlib.modelchain.ModelChain no longer attempts to infer
the spectral model from PVSystem attributes. (:issue:`2017`, :pull:`2253`)

Our versioning strategy says that including such changes mean we should call this release 0.12.0 instead of 0.11.3. However, we have several deprecations marked to be removed in 0.12: #2396

@pvlib/pvlib-maintainer @pvlib/pvlib-triage your input is requested: should we call this release 0.12.0 and get some final PRs in to address those deprecations?

@AdamRJensen
Copy link
Member

Not really addressing what you're asking but worth mentioning. I plan to implement several breaking changes in the iotools module to bring more consistency. This I hope to have released before the PVSC pvlib tutorial in early June

@wholmgren
Copy link
Member

should we call this release 0.12.0 and get some final PRs in to address those deprecations?

Yes. And if Adam immediately introduces more breaking changes then we move on to 0.13 (no need to dwell on 0.12.x series).

@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented Mar 14, 2025

No objections from me to make the next release v0.12. I marked #2343 for v0.13 thinking we should deprecate pytz in v0.12. We can simply shift that forward by 0.01.

@kandersolar kandersolar added this to the v0.12.0 milestone Mar 14, 2025
@kandersolar
Copy link
Member Author

kandersolar commented Mar 14, 2025

Ok, I moved the 0.11.3 items to 0.12.0, renamed 0.11.4 to 0.12.1, and deleted the 0.11.3 milestone.

Looks like @echedey-ls, @RDaxini, and @AdamRJensen already have PRs started for some of these items. Let's try to get those and the rest of the 0.12.0 removals done so that 0.12.0 can be released sometime next week.

@kandersolar kandersolar changed the title v0.11.3 (or 0.12.0?) planning v0.12.0 release planning Mar 14, 2025
@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented Mar 14, 2025

Do we want to deprecate pytz in 0.12?

Let's not, to keep 0.12 on track for release.

@RDaxini
Copy link
Contributor

RDaxini commented Mar 14, 2025

#2244 is now ready

What do we think about #2368? It was just a suggestion. It's not a big change but, if it would be helpful to use subfolders, I can open a PR in time for this next release.

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member Author

What do we think about #2368?

+1 from me, but it's not a breaking code change and can easily wait for the next release if time is a constraint

@adriesse
Copy link
Member

Thanks @kandersolar ! Just in time for the monthly NumFocus update too!

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants