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

Road to v1.0.0 #392

Open
Korijn opened this issue Nov 24, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Road to v1.0.0 #392

Korijn opened this issue Nov 24, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Korijn
Copy link
Collaborator

Korijn commented Nov 24, 2022

Meta-issue to list the issues we consider necessary to reach the v1.0.0 milestone.

Must have

Aside of core features, must-haves should be mostly API impacting, stability related issues.

Nice to have

Can be done later, but would significantly improve user experience.

API decision required (no implementation needed)

Important features postponed for implementation after 1.0.0

@FirefoxMetzger
Copy link
Contributor

FirefoxMetzger commented Dec 5, 2022

@Korijn Since this is a central meta-issue, could you pin it so it's easier to find?

Edit: nvm. I have the power to pin. Feel free to unpin if you think this is a bad idea.

@FirefoxMetzger FirefoxMetzger pinned this issue Dec 5, 2022
@Korijn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Korijn commented Dec 5, 2022

This is the first time I've seen a pinned issue on Github. :) No problem.

@FirefoxMetzger
Copy link
Contributor

@Korijn fyi, the button for it lives here

image

@Korijn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Korijn commented Jun 3, 2023

After seeing #545 as the latest example I expect more users will be confused by the readme changing on the main branch (which is totally natural) and going out of sync with the last released version of pygfx on pypi.

We can consider using a dev branch to do all our work in between releases, so that the main branch is always in sync with the last released version on pypi. That way we can avoid the confusion.

Or, we drop the installation instructions from the readme and refer to the docs for the latest stable release instead. Essentially that creates a strict separation between readme and docs; one is for contributors, the other is for users.

It's a little silly but it will avoid many future issues I think.

@almarklein
Copy link
Member

Another suggestion:

  • Change RTD default branch to stable instead of latest.
  • Change any links (in the docs and readme) accordingly.
  • Add a clear warning to the docs that we're 0.x, so that the API breaks sometimes, and that the example in the readme may require main to work.
  • Release more often :)

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants