Release 236.0.0

[bergeron]

This is intended to release the asset controllers. I also included other controllers the release tool thought should be included

[bergeron]

I'm considering simplifying this by just releasing assets-controllers, and intentionally skipping other packages. If anyone can help verify it's safe to do so.

[MajorLift]

• Most of these releases (other than @metamask/assets-controllers itself) should be patch version bumps instead.
  • The only potential breaking changes in these changelogs are the major version bumps for @metamask/utils and @metamask/eth-sig-util (@metamask/{keyring-controller,message-manager}). These updates should be evaluated based on their effect on the packages, and if they are indeed breaking changes they should be noted as such in the changelogs. If not, the package should not be bumped by a major version.
  • For reference: https://github.com/MetaMask/core/blob/main/docs/reviewing-release-prs.md
• Major version bumps in peer dependencies are always breaking changes, and should be recorded in the changelogs. Non-major bumps in peer dependencies should not be applied at all in the package.json peerDependencies section nor in the changelog. Updating the devDependencies entry is still necessary.
• Version bumps applied by this PR should also be added to the changelogs.
• The notifications team packages (@metamask/{notification-services,profile-sync}-controller) are pre-release (v0.x.x), so major releases should bump a "minor" version and minor/patch releases a "patch" version.

I'm considering simplifying this by just releasing assets-controllers, and intentionally skipping other packages. If anyone can help verify it's safe to do so.

When creating major releases, feature teams are expected to also publish unreleased changes in peer dependencies (especially for peerDeps being bumped) and dependents, and deliver them to the clients.

Previous lapses in these follow-up tasks have resulted in significant package version disparities in the clients, and we're working on tooling (https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/2988) and guidelines to ensure that package versions will stay aligned in the future.

[MajorLift]

typos

[FrederikBolding]

@bergeron Can we release controller-utils as part of this as well?

[bergeron]

Major version bumps in peer dependencies are always breaking changes, and should be recorded in the changelogs. Non-major bumps in peer dependencies should not be applied at all in the package.json peerDependencies section nor in the changelog. Updating the devDependencies entry is still necessary.

Version bumps applied by this PR should also be added to the changelogs.

Can you explain how this is different from what's in the PR? I'm just running the release tool and categorizing each entry it puts in the changelog. Is there something additional to do on top?

[bergeron]

The only potential breaking changes in these changelogs are the major version bumps for @metamask/utils and @metamask/eth-sig-util

I wasn't sure how to determine whether these were breaking, so errred on the side of major release. But can mark that as breaking in changelog unless someone can say they're not breaking.

Looking deeper into the changes I think they're both non breaking for consumers

[MajorLift]

We generally don't include dev dependency updates in changelogs, but they can be included for reference if relevant to the team.

[MajorLift]

This PR bumps @metamask/controller-utils from ^11.4.1 to ^11.4.2. This needs to be reflected in the changelogs.

[MajorLift]

LGTM! Thanks for your patience.