Skip to content

Setting master version to 4.2.0 dev #4659

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor

@AHaumer AHaumer commented Jun 10, 2025

Setting version to 4.2.0 (also ModelicaTest, Complex, etc. - hope I didn't forget one)
and provide ReleaseNotes.mo for 4.2.0, including the already merged OpAmp (#4643 and #4653)

@AHaumer AHaumer requested review from casella and HansOlsson June 10, 2025 15:30
@AHaumer AHaumer self-assigned this Jun 10, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@maltelenz maltelenz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems fine to me, but some unnecessary whitespace changes, see comments.

@AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor Author

AHaumer commented Jun 10, 2025

Thanks @maltelenz I wasn't aware of these tiny whitespace changes.
Without discussing tool issues in public: I didn't touch these parts of MSL and I don't know how to avoid these changes.
I hope I have addressed them all. Sorry I did this myself because I wasn't logged in at github and therefore I didn't see that I could accept your suggestions easily ...

@AHaumer AHaumer requested a review from maltelenz June 10, 2025 16:20
@maltelenz
Copy link
Contributor

Without discussing tool issues in public: I didn't touch these parts of MSL and I don't know how to avoid these changes.

Perfectly preserving whitespace when editing is a very hard problem for a tool, so whichever tool you used I don't blame it :)

I try to discard small changes like these before committing, but they can slip through the cracks easily.

maltelenz
maltelenz previously approved these changes Jun 10, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@maltelenz maltelenz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The rest of the placeholder things are probably OK (so it is remembered to fill it out when the time comes), but this sentence seems specific to 4.1.0 and I don't think we need it.

Otherwise fine.

Copy link
Contributor

@HansOlsson HansOlsson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Clearly we are aiming for 4.2.0 at some point in time, but calling it 4.2.0 already will be a bit confusing. Wouldn't it be better to call it "4.2.0 Development" or similarly?

That syntax is specified in Modelica; and intended exactly for such scenarios.

@maltelenz maltelenz dismissed their stale review June 11, 2025 08:05

I prefer the straight and clear 4.2.0. It should be clear enough that it isn't released yet by the fact that you are looking at master, and not a release (branch or github release).

Copy link
Member

@beutlich beutlich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would not change the version now. See also #4661 as my alternate PR.

@AHaumer AHaumer changed the title Setting version to 4.2.0 Setting master version to 4.2.0 dev Jun 11, 2025
@AHaumer
Copy link
Contributor Author

AHaumer commented Jun 11, 2025

To be honest, I would prefer "4.2.0 dev" - you see even later it had been taken from master.

@maltelenz
Copy link
Contributor

To be honest, I would prefer "4.2.0 dev" - you see even later it had been taken from master.

If that's the consensus, I'm OK with that, even if I prefer to keep to cleaner version numbers.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants