Creation of a to-do list for the next 2.3 release and update milestone list

[eldemet]

It has already been 5 years since our previous release, and a large number of important and exciting commits have been made towards the new version.

Shall we create a To-do like we did for the 2.2 version, to set the roadmap for the next release?

Also we probably need to update (add/remove) issues associated with the 2.3 milestone (currently there are some old issues pending there, and many are missing).

@LRossman @eladsal @samhatchett let me know what you think.

Demetris (@eldemet)

[LRossman]

@eldemet I totally agree. Let's get the ball rolling for a v.2.3 release!

[eldemet]

That's great @LRossman, I've tried to create a roadmap, like the one we used for 2.2. @eladsal, @samhatchett, @LRossman please let me know if I have missed something.

• [x] Check open issues which were assigned to Milestone 2.3 in the past. Close issues that have been resolved, or decide to more to 2.4.
• [x] Check other open issues, if they have been resolved or if there are any bugs that need to be resolved for the 2.3 version, or decide if they need to go to 2.4 release.
• [x] Update "2.2" references in the code to "2.3" where appropriate
• [ ] merge dev into master
• [x] Update list of authors
• [x] Update gh-pages
• [x] Update & check release notes
• [x] Check and update dox documentation
• [ ] ~~Announce release candidate, for user feedback. Build shared libraries to allow user checks on different operating systems (Windows/Linux/MacOS), compatibility with external toolkits (e.g., MATLAB, Python, R, etc.)~~
• [ ] ~~Collect feedback and respond to any issues.~~
• [x] Finalize and publish release

[LRossman]

I marked as completed a few items on the to-do list. In reviewing the list of open issues I didn't see any that are critical for releasing a version 2.3. (There are some issues that I feel have been adequately answered and should be closed -- can we do so even if we are not the original poster?).

Regarding the item that updates the PDF User's Manual and the read-the-docs, these are US EPA's products and are outside the control of this project. I suggest that the item be removed from the to-do list.

Also I'm a little confused about the feedback items 10 and 11. Do they mean that somehow we release a "beta test" version 2.3 before merging dev into master (and updating gh-pages). How would this be done? Was this done for v2.2?

[eladsal]

@LRossman I think we can close old issues after leaving a comment. I removed the item controlled by the EPA.

Not sure we need that pre-release. Anyone following the project had many chances to comment.

BTW, how do we update the author's list, manually?

[LRossman]

I just updated the authors list with those who had commits after the v2.2 release date of Dec 10, 2019.

(To get a display of all contributors for the project, click the Insights option at the top of the home page and then select Contributors from the left side panel. You can check when each contributor's last commit was by right clicking the commits count under their name.)

[eldemet]

Hi @LRossman @eladsal I don't think we need to do a pre-release. The community has had access to the dev version for some time now. We can issue a minor update if needed at a later stage.

Regarding closing some open issues, I would suggest we ask the first authors if they believe the issue can be closed - I know that some would like to keep there issues open. However, I would suggest we tag these issues accordingly, to make it easier for us to classify. What do you think?

d

[LRossman]

I counted 21 out of 51 open issues that could be closed: #849, #839, #824, #807, #794, #783, #764, #763, #736, #761, #760, #757, #736, #708, #707, #655, #654, #638, #620, #522, #61.

Of these the following should have replies that explain why they can be closed: #783, #655, #654, #638, #620, #522. I can volunteer to do this.

For the others we can simply leave a reply asking if the issue can be closed.

[zannads]

I just updated the authors list with those who had commits after the v2.2 release date of Dec 10, 2019.

(To get a display of all contributors for the project, click the Insights option at the top of the home page and then select Contributors from the left side panel. You can check when each contributor's last commit was by right clicking the commits count under their name.)

Hi @LRossman, I noticed this commit. Can I ask you to correct my name to "Dennis Zanutto"? If you need an email, my work email is [email protected]

Thank you very much, I look forward to the release!

[eldemet]

Hi @LRossman @eladsal, how do you recommend we proceed with the gh-pages? Is there anything else we need to do before the release?

demetris

[LRossman]

The Toolkit 2.3 HTML documentation is complete. The readme.md file in the project's doc folder explains how to generate it with Doxygen. I don't know what the process after that is to get the generated files into gh-pages. @samhatchett handled that task before.

[eldemet]

Hi @eladsal @LRossman @samhatchett , I have created the html files which are now in the gh-pages-2.3. I have also uploaded them on my repo, you can check the documentation here: https://eldemet.github.io/epanet2.3-docs/index.html . If we are ok, we need to update gh-pages, so that the new documentation is published.

If there are no other issues, we can tick this pending item, and proceed with the final steps for 2.3.

[LRossman]

I reviewed the documentation and found a few items that needed fixing (sorry I didn't do this earlier). I just merged PR #863 into dev with the corrections. @eldemet please re-generate the gh-pages using this latest version of dev.

[LRossman]

Another update to the documentation .dox files was made to include the newly added option to set pressure units independent of the unit system in place. As a result the gh-pages will need to be regenerated again. Let's agree that no more PR's will be accepted until the v.2.3 release is made.

[LRossman]

I believe we are ready to proceed with issuing the v.2.3 release.

I assume that the easiest way to replace master with dev is to use the following commands:

git checkout master
git merge dev

As for publishing release binaries, I've created ones for Windows and Linux (x86_64), but not for MacOS. So someone with a Mac would have to supply them. I propose that the notes for the release read as follows:

Version 2.3 adds some useful new features to the previous release of OWA-EPANET. These additions include:
    
- a Positional Control Valve whose loss coefficient is determined by its percent open setting.
- a Fixed And Variable Area Discharge (FAVAD) model to compute pressure-dependent pipe leakage
- the ability to enable or disable simple and rule-based controls
- a Flow Balance report listing the components of a system's total inflow and outflow
- the option to use an expanded set of pressure units independent of the unit system in place
- the ability to edit EPANET's Tag property
- an API binding for C#
- improved support for using the API as a database editor for graphical user interfaces.

In addition some existing features were improved while a number of bugs were fixed.
Please consult the ReleaseNotes2_3.md file for the full list of updates.

Is anyone with more GitHub knowledge than me willing to take action on this? (I'll try if no one else volunteers.)

[lbutler]

Thank you @LRossman for publishing the new version!

I assume we can still add binaries to the release, and if so, I can compile the mac version and send it along to you.

[LRossman]

The dev branch has been merged into the master branch and a Version 2.3 release has been created. Someone (maybe @eldemet ) needs to deploy the updated documentation to the repo's github-pages site since I don't know how to do that.

In merging dev into master I wasn't able to make the files listed on the repo's landing page all have the same commit title (v2.3) and date (today) like the previous master had. If someone knows how to do this please do so since it makes for a cleaner listing.

@lbutler, yes please send me a Mac set of binaries and I will add it to the release. Indicate if its for Intel or ARM CPUs.

[eladsal]

Thank you @LRossman and all contributors!

[eldemet]

Dear @LRossman @eladsal @samhatchett

I have updated the documentation, and I think with this we are now ready to close this task. I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions, and especially @LRossman!

Enjoy 2.3!

demetris

[0tkl]

Hi @eldemet, since #874 has been merged and included in the latest patch releases, could you please redeploy the online documentation, if there are no other changes planned for the doc in the near future?