Skip to content

v0.9.4 release plan #1608

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
9 tasks done
kandersolar opened this issue Dec 9, 2022 · 10 comments · Fixed by #1620
Closed
9 tasks done

v0.9.4 release plan #1608

kandersolar opened this issue Dec 9, 2022 · 10 comments · Fixed by #1620
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member

kandersolar commented Dec 9, 2022

Open candidates for inclusion:

Things to defer:

@pvlib/pvlib-maintainer please edit as you see fit. Any objection to choosing the 15th 19th 20th as target release date?

@kandersolar kandersolar added this to the 0.9.4 milestone Dec 9, 2022
@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented Dec 9, 2022

List looks OK to me.

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member Author

I'd like to get this release wrapped up in the next day or two before reviewers drift away for the holidays (assuming they haven't already). #1602 needs a green checkmark from @cwhanse. #1598 is a conflict-creating pest that I want to merge last so that the burden of making sure nothing gets lost is on myself.

Should we add #1617 and #1618 to the list? They are small and easy to review but are not currently tagged with a milestone.

@adriesse
Copy link
Member

Should we add #1617 and #1618 to the list? They are small and easy to review but are not currently tagged with a milestone.

Only do as much as you can. I'm trying hard to drift away...

@wholmgren
Copy link
Member

I'm -1 on last minute API changes to well-loved functions. Seems to me that deprecation of pvwatts functions and introduction of pvarray.py might require more thought than we can put in at the last minute. I'm only now coming up for air after the end of year rush, so apologies for not engaging sooner. I'll bite my tongue if you all want to move ahead with what's already in motion.

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member Author

@wholmgren I don't mind revisiting any decisions here. To clarify, are you suggesting (1) reverting #1558 and (2) adding the new functionality in #1602 to pvsystem.py instead of creating a new module?

@wholmgren
Copy link
Member

That's one path forward. Another option is reverting #1558 but proceeding with #1602 as is. Another is delaying the release until we have the major API right - maybe that's a day, maybe that's a month.

@adriesse
Copy link
Member

@wholmgren could you be more specific about what you do and don't like? Top two scenarios for moving forward?

@wholmgren
Copy link
Member

My recommendations are:

  1. Quickly engage with Kevin's concern on module name Migrate efficiency models from pvpltools-python #1544 (comment) but recognizing that it's not a big deal to change this if we need to (I'd do it without deprecation going to 0.10).
  2. Merge ADR PV efficiency model from pvpltools-python (take 2) #1602
  3. Do not add more functionality to pvarray.py (or whatever name we go with) at this time.
  4. Consider if Rename pvwatts to pvwattsv5 everywhere #1558 should be reverted until there is a better home for pvwattsv5_dc and pvwattsv5_losses. If the answer is "revert", then commit to finding those homes in the next month. If the answer is "keep it", then be comfortable with a second round of deprecations for those functions.
  5. Release

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member Author

I'm okay with keeping pvarray.py and possibly renaming it later. I'm also okay with reverting #1558 and will submit a PR for that shortly.

@adriesse
Copy link
Member

Sounds like a plan!

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.

4 participants