Skip to content

Conversation

@pytestbot
Copy link
Contributor

Created automatically from #7547 (comment).

Once all builds pass and it has been approved by one or more maintainers, the build
can be released by pushing a tag 6.0.0 to this repository.

@pytestbot pytestbot mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2020
Copy link
Member

@The-Compiler The-Compiler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The diff LGTM, though I'm not sure what we wanted to do about the changelog?

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

@asottile had the strong opinion that they should be kept separate (as is now), right @asottile?

@The-Compiler
Copy link
Member

Works for me, though then perhaps the 6.0.0 changelog should link to the RC changelog to make sure people don't miss that part?

Also I didn't realize turning PytestDeprecationWarning into errors happened after the rc, i.e. is mostly untested/unnoticed by people testing the rc. Well, I suppose we'll see how that goes!

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Also I didn't realize turning PytestDeprecationWarning into errors happened after the rc, i.e. is mostly untested/unnoticed by people testing the rc.

That was mostly by oversight from our part; the PR got stalled and I didn't realize it until the rc1 was out. I agree it can lead to surprises for people who tested rc1, but I think we can see how it goes as you suggest (we're already in a much better position than if we released 6.0.0 directly).

Copy link
Member

@asottile asottile left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

@asottile had the strong opinion that they should be kept separate (as is now)

Any suggestions how we "link" with the 6.0.0rc1 changelog below? How about:

image

@asottile
Copy link
Member

@asottile had the strong opinion that they should be kept separate (as is now)

Any suggestions how we "link" with the 6.0.0rc1 changelog below? How about:

image

sounds good to me!

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Done. 👍

Copy link
Member

@The-Compiler The-Compiler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yay! Can't wait, and apparently Twitter can't either 😄

@bluetech
Copy link
Member

I haven't checked the release action yet, but according to RELEASING.md the release should be made to the 6.0.x branch, but this PR is made to master. Do we want to change RELEASING.md (the argument for releasing from the branch is that once created it is no longer affected by concurrent merges; argument against is that the tag doesn't show up in master).

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

I haven't checked the release action yet, but according to RELEASING.md the release should be made to the 6.0.x branch, but this PR is made to master. Do we want to change RELEASING.md (the argument for releasing from the branch is that once created it is no longer affected by concurrent merges; argument against is that the tag doesn't show up in master)

I was planning on pushing the 6.0.x branch to point to the same commit as the tag (once pushed), but good call, better to stick to the existing process. I've created 6.0.x at the base of this branch and changed the merge target. Thanks!

@nicoddemus nicoddemus changed the base branch from master to 6.0.x July 28, 2020 19:28
@nicoddemus nicoddemus merged commit 5d606e9 into 6.0.x Jul 28, 2020
@nicoddemus nicoddemus deleted the release-6.0.0 branch July 28, 2020 19:59
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Woot!

nicoddemus added a commit to nicoddemus/pytest that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2020
nicoddemus added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2020
Merge pull request #7550 from pytest-dev/release-6.0.0
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.

7 participants