trying to build 0.18rc with rc tag on conda-forge channel

[amueller]

No description provided.

[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.

[jakirkham]

That's fun. 😕

[amueller]

ok ^^

[jakirkham]

So this is set to go into master currently. Am going to add a new branch for the rc. We will need to change the base branch and resolve conflicts potentially, but it shouldn't be bad.

[jakirkham]

Ok, added an rc branch and changed this over to it. Now we should be good to go.

[jakirkham]

So I think we can just drop sources. This is default anyways.

[jakirkham]

Couple comments. Should be easy to address. Otherwise LGTM.

[ogrisel]

note that 0.18rc has a broken test under Python 3 that has been fixed in 0.18rc1. FYI I am working on 0.18rc2 with another important bugfix so please do not publish the package for 0.18rc or 0.18rc1.

[jakirkham]

Ok, thanks. Noted.

[amueller]

@jakirkham so would people that subscribed to the matplotlib rc also get this?
Or do people usually only specify a particular package with a label?
If no-one gets this one without explicitly saying so, I feel like we shouldn't worry too much.

[jakirkham]

Checksum changed. Though may not be worth bothering with until we have the RC we want.

[jakirkham]

@jakirkham so would people that subscribed to the matplotlib rc also get this?

Yep, unfortunately. Though it is better than putting it in main.

There was some discussion of having a flag for conda to control this behavior. See this issue ( conda/conda#3125 ).

The CFEP (which is not yet accepted) suggests possibly including the package name in the label like so. This would resolve the problem, but is a bit verbose and feels a bit unfriendly if one starts installing lots of dev packages. Still it may be the best available option.

Not really sure which works best and all of them are a little incomplete. Would be curious to hear your thoughts/preferences.

Or do people usually only specify a particular package with a label?

Had suggested a mechanism for doing something like that as well, but it is a bit inelegant. It could also suffer from issues if a new dependency is added.

If no-one gets this one without explicitly saying so, I feel like we shouldn't worry too much.

Agreed. I'm not too worried about it either.

Simply having the user make the choice is the most important. The rest is questions about the granularity of that choice and its impact.

[ogrisel]

Arlgl:

.............................................................
command ./ci_support/run_docker_build.sh took more than 120 minutes to run

[amueller]

Sooo... disable the tests ? lol

[jakirkham]

There are other options. Will look at it more when I'm back in front of a computer (on phone now).