conda v22.9.0 #2

[jezdez]

Replacing #175.

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

[conda-forge-linter]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[jezdez]

@conda-forge-admin, please rerender

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-webservice.

I tried to rerender for you, but it looks like there was nothing to do.

This message was generated by GitHub actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-feedstock/actions/runs/3105701679.

[dbast]

@jezdez Is that remaining patch intended to be upstreamed, so that it does not require forward porting again with a new conda version?

[jakirkham]

Was there some discussion about the move to CalVer somewhere?

[travishathaway]

@jakirkham,

CalVer is outlined in CEP 8 and the voting/discussion happen on this pull request.

[beckermr]

LGTM!

I made an announcement on the conda-forge side since this is a pretty big change.

conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io@498b3b2

[jezdez]

Thank you @beckermr!

[jaimergp]

We might need a new build, there are some dependency changes that didn't make it to this PR:

Check the cross-repo diff.

[jaimergp]

Well the diff was a bit more dramatic than needed. It's only ruamel_yaml.

PR here #177

[beckermr]

We should mark the old one as broken if needed.

[beckermr]

Not needed. Simply a looser pin.