Let's release 3.3.2 #3676
Replies: 12 comments
-
|
It looks like issues #2819 and #2820 are labeled for 3.3.2 and not currently addressed by a pull request. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I went ahead and made the last changes on #2840 then merged it. @SteveIreland, what's the status on #2780? @jekkos, what's the status of #2819 and #2820? Do you want me to take #2819? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'll have a look at the invoice number thingy, wanted to do that today but didn't get to it. But feel free to check. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@jekkos I looked some at #2819 today and got it narrowed down. It has something to do with the way that you are querying the attribute values. I wrote a few comments on that issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm going to review/test/update/merge #2780 today ... I know @jekkos wanted me to incorporate a PHP Unit test (and so did I) but work/life have prevented me from being able to make time for it. So unless someone stops me that is my plan for today. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sounds good to me. See my note on the PR. You mention that you made the one fix I pointed out, but perhaps it still needs to get pushed to the branch on the repository. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK, #2819 is going to get a temporary patch (waiting for a code review from anyone who wants to sign off on one line addition) but is essentially going to get punted until 3.4.0 for a full fix. @SteveIreland appears to have everything in the bag with #2780. That just leaves #2820 which I think @jekkos is handling and we can release 3.3.2. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, I'm still testing and debugging. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok I think we then have two things open now? I did not get any feedback on the tax issues so presume all is fine there? Also I'll try to close that last PR #2860 this week so we can finally ship the release? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Funny I was looking in docker hub and saw we already have a 3.3.2 tag in there. Probably that is because we tend to bump to the next version and then this one is marked a 'final'. Maybe we should try to adhere to a SNAPSHOT or -dev suffix while we develop on master branch so that the created builds can be clearly distinguished? I tihnk I have added this suffix alredy in the footer if it's not an official release so maybe use that approach in git as well? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@jekkos can you clarify? Do you mean that at the beginning of the dev cycle we create a branch called master-dev or master-SNAPSHOT and only merge into that? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
well I think we should have done it this way, but it might be hard to correct history as I'd like to have this aligned. curerntly the last version tag I find is 3.3.1 (pushed 7 months ago). So it does look Ok. If we move to 3.4 we should have 3.3.2 tagged there that can then be deployed on the dev server. docker pull jekkos/opensourcepos:3.3.1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Unless I'm missing something, we have PR #2840 (@WebShells) and maybe #2780 (@SteveIreland) needed to get merged for 3.3.2 to get released. Are there other things that I'm missing? #2840 just has two lines of code that need to get changed and #2780 may or may not need to get merged for 3.3.2... it depends on whether its fixing a bug or providing an enhancement.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions