Cats: Prepare for 0.9.0 release

Created on 30 Dec 2016 · 15Comments · Source: typelevel/cats

It's been a little over two months since 0.8.0, and while there haven't been many big changes since then, I think it's probably time for a new release, and at least three other people agree. :smile:

There's nothing more in particular that I personally want to see in 0.9 besides #1506 (flatMap syntax for Either on 2.10 / 2.11 that's consistent with Either#flatMap in 2.12), but if other people have other things they'd like to wait for, we can expand this list:

[x] Finish up #1506 (flatMap for Either, etc.) and get it reviewed and merged.
[x] Merge #1466 (miscellaneous StateT stuff).
[x] Merge #1475 (Reducible instances).
[x] Merge #1509 (Scala.js update).
[x] Merge #1500 (new operators for Ior).
[x] Merge #1480 (FunctionK#and).
[x] Merge #1455 (NonEmptyList#reverse).
[x] Review #1510 (async catchNonFatal for Future).
[x] One more review for #1452 (Foldable#foldMapM).
[x] More eyes on #1505.
[x] Review release notes and update before release (#1511).

~~I can write up the release notes on Monday (the 2nd), but if someone beats me to it I'd be happy to review instead.~~

Source

travisbrown

👍1

Most helpful comment

@philwills Same here. I think we just need to get someone to merge #1511 and someone else with publishing rights to pull the trigger.

travisbrown on 13 Jan 2017

👍2

All 15 comments

I want #1466 and #1475

johnynek on 30 Dec 2016

@johnynek Added!

travisbrown on 30 Dec 2016

I don't know if #1505 is fixable at all?

notxcain on 31 Dec 2016

I'd like to add #1500 too. If someone can give it one more +1.

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

would like #1510 in too.

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

I think #1480 is ready too.

By the way, I would mention we don't seem to be very proactive on reviewing and merging code. :/

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

👍1

1455 looks good too.

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

1452 also

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

@johnynek Updated again.

Maybe we should make it a matter of policy that if there's no obvious controversy in the PR the second maintainer to 👍 should be responsible for merging immediately? I know that personally if I review something with multiple 👍s that's been open for a while, I tend to assume that there's a reason it's not merged, and I don't merge it (which is of course self-perpetuating 😦).

travisbrown on 2 Jan 2017

yeah, I'm +1 on that. revert is there if we want.

The bigger issues are the ones where there is 1 +1, but no other comments. Like no one else has looked and it should be simple in many cases.

johnynek on 2 Jan 2017

The flip-side obligation for PR _openers_ will need to be that if there's been related conversation on Gitter it _must_ be linked in the PR. Again, I haven't personally been doing a good job of keeping up with Gitter recently, so if I see something with no comments I tend to assume I missed something there.

travisbrown on 2 Jan 2017

@notxcain I just took a look at #1505 and don't really have any idea how to help. I think we should spend some more time trying to fix it, but not before 0.9.0. Does that sound reasonable?

travisbrown on 3 Jan 2017

Is this still likely to be released soon? I've been planning to do a release of a downstream project, but have held off on the assumption that this was imminent.