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

Prepare 0.25.0 release #10497

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Jul 27, 2023
Merged

Conversation

kevinhartman
Copy link
Contributor

@kevinhartman kevinhartman commented Jul 25, 2023

Summary

This commit prepares the 0.25.0 release, this involves 3 steps:

  • changing all the version numbers to 0.25.0 from 0.25.0rc1
  • updating the release notes to prepare them for publishing.
  • removing release notes from 0.25 that were back-ported to 0.24.

As we did in 0.24, we're using a pre-release feature in reno to add subsections to the release notes. Subsections are added to the features, deprecations, and upgrade sections for:

  • transpiler
  • algorithms
  • circuits
  • quantum_info
  • pulse
  • providers
  • primitives
  • visualization

I've also added the following new sections:

  • synthesis
  • misc
  • qasm

Details and comments

TODO:

  • Add algorithms deprecation to prelude.
  • Add classical expression support to prelude.
  • Features
  • Known Issues
  • Upgrade Notes
  • Deprecation Notes
  • Bug Fixes

@mtreinish mtreinish added this to the 0.25.0 milestone Jul 25, 2023
@mtreinish mtreinish added the Changelog: None Do not include in changelog label Jul 25, 2023
applying this pass recursively to the blocks in control flow operations. Note that the meaning
of "block" in :class:`.ConsolidateBlocks` is unrelated to that in
:class:`.ControlFlowOp`.
Enabled support for :class:`.ControlFlowOp` operations in the :class:`.ConsolidateBlocks` pass.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you want to say "Previously, the blocks in control flow operations were skipped by this pass." like you did for commutative cancellation?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure if that's true or not. Do you know off hand? I was just going off the original wording of each.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't recall I can check the PR. But it's fine like this. I only asked because back to back it was a noticeable difference.

Copy link
Member

@jakelishman jakelishman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll actually help read the notes tomorrow...

qiskit/dagcircuit/collect_blocks.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@kevinhartman kevinhartman marked this pull request as ready for review July 26, 2023 21:21
@kevinhartman kevinhartman requested review from a team, eggerdj, wshanks and ikkoham as code owners July 26, 2023 21:21
@qiskit-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:

  • @ElePT
  • @Qiskit/terra-core
  • @ajavadia
  • @ikkoham
  • @levbishop
  • @mtreinish
  • @nkanazawa1989
  • @t-imamichi
  • @woodsp-ibm

qiskit/quantum_info/__init__.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines -2 to +5
issues:
features_circuits:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A general question: is this the way we plan to do this categorisation moving forwards? Seems like a lot of extra work on the release manager, whereas we could be doing it a little more on-the-fly as we merge PRs. I don't know how that interacts with how we manage our Reno configs, though.

Copy link
Member

@mtreinish mtreinish Jul 27, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The fundamental issue is the subcategories feature still isn't included in a reno elease, so we're installing it from source to get the functionality. I think it adds a lot the readability of the notes, but I think forcing a source install on main is a bigger dev burden if we want people to write notes. Once it is in a release though we can start enforcing this as part of PRs I think.

releasenotes/notes/0.25/use-abi3-4a935e0557d3833b.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@mtreinish mtreinish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall this LGTM and I think we're almost ready to merge and tag the release. I left a couple last comments inline. There is one more PR in the backport queue that has new release notes that there was some discussion on improving in the main branch PR here: #10503 that we'll need to update here after it merges.

applying this pass recursively to the blocks in control flow operations. Note that the meaning
of "block" in :class:`.ConsolidateBlocks` is unrelated to that in
:class:`.ControlFlowOp`.
Enabled support for :class:`.ControlFlowOp` operations in the :class:`.ConsolidateBlocks` pass.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't recall I can check the PR. But it's fine like this. I only asked because back to back it was a noticeable difference.

prelude: |
The Qiskit Terra 0.25.0 release highlights are:

* Control-flow operations are now supported through the transpiler at
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are just copies of the release notes in the feature section right? Maybe we either want to have a more brief entry that just highlights the feature for the prelude, or if we're going to keep the full notes here we should remove the corresponding feature note.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah they're the same. IMO, it's important for these to be up top since it might help with adoption (at least in the case of the classical expression support), and I like the complete form for that. I don't mind these appearing twice, especially since subsequent entries from the same release note file will appear right after them in the corresponding sections below. I don't mind changing this though if you feel strongly.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's fine, lets go with this then. We haven't done this in the past, but lets give this a try and see how it works out.

Copy link
Member

@mtreinish mtreinish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks for all the hard work updating everything and preparing the final release.

@mtreinish mtreinish enabled auto-merge July 27, 2023 20:39
@mtreinish mtreinish disabled auto-merge July 27, 2023 21:06
@mtreinish mtreinish merged commit fa0491b into Qiskit:stable/0.25 Jul 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Changelog: None Do not include in changelog
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants