-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
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
1.1.0 Release #68
Comments
When that PR is merged, I can make one updating to 1.3.0 |
afaik @svyatonik is already working on this: svyatonik#2 |
As I already said above, I would do it. |
one more candidate, simple migration removal #54 |
|
So, all the prs mentioned above are merged. I still want to include #117 and #118. Maybe also @Leemo94 also wants to bring up his small pr for changing the Kusama OpenGov tracks config. However, I would not wait on this if the pr is not popping up today. Otherwise we still require a weights update. @ggwpez @liamaharon can you please do this? |
#119 this one as well. |
About the weights, I found that this will provoke an Overweight message. |
FWIW: many (if not all) of the required benchmarks have already been run against (relatively) latest |
Since the introduction of paritytech/polkadot-sdk#1234, the teleport when kicking a member will fail if the
Similarly will happen with |
We are planning to just add an |
@NachoPal Do you have any specific scenario in mind? Actually, relay chains and system parachains do not recognize any trusted reserves |
What about #108? It's reviewed and ready to merge IMO and only adds functionality that needs further governance actions to actually enable. It'd be great to get it in this upcoming release! |
we might want to include this small PR, one constant value change, otherwise the current salary budget limit, might not be enough |
Talked to @muharem and he'll open a PR |
Still misses reviews. |
Yes |
fixed with this PR - #125 |
This was fixed also in #125 |
For #68 (comment). Uses instructions introduced to the readme in #127 to re-bench all runtimes. TODO - [x] Is this much change % expected? Is benchmarking on vCPUs flawed because they are arbitrarily shared with other cloud customers? - It seems to be fine, the changes align with actual changes in configuration of the runtimes (thanks @ggwpez!). - [x] Polkadot - [x] Kusama - [x] Asset Hub Polkadot - [x] Asset Hub Kusama - [x] Bridge Hub Polkadot - [x] Bridge Hub Kusama - [x] Collectives Polkadot - [ ] Look into why subweight shows some errors ## Polkadot Changes <img width="1085" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 11 06 20" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/272e2ecd-48da-4ebb-b6e2-ff9fd73683fe"> <img width="1085" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 11 08 24" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/a37dea2e-abf6-4ad8-b3ef-abed6cb3e955"> <img width="1085" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 11 10 14" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/08788059-a052-4af6-b2aa-c791a3cddc24"> ## Kusama Changes <img width="1074" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 11 12 19" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/b096d1ec-384f-436f-ae9c-f6f929d14b9b"> <img width="1074" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 11 12 43" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/1bc757e8-c00c-4cf0-bea6-f74b92a33355"> ## Asset Hub Polkadot Changes <img width="1313" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 20 34 25" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/ea658d57-365d-45de-b0be-2c4627783e64"> ## Asset Hub Kusama Changes <img width="1313" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-19 at 20 43 37" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/963483ee-0d9f-49dc-9a83-31b443df1f10"> ## Bridge Hub Polkadot <img width="1313" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 11 49 13" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/0da77515-bb36-4a41-9c88-463ea28d9a9e"> ## Bridge Hub Kusama <img width="1313" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 11 48 39" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/97c7efa4-6a22-42fe-90e0-8477e0628d00"> ## Collectives Polkadot <img width="1369" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 11 50 33" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/6b2b22f3-fc87-4f19-a126-8d4be2335aa6"> <img width="1369" alt="Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 11 51 07" src="https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/assets/16665596/168ec1e2-ec47-4213-8899-f2d51c8ec6d1"> --------- Signed-off-by: Oliver Tale-Yazdi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Oliver Tale-Yazdi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: joe petrowski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
All ticked off now, can we go ahead? |
@NachoPal was doing a final run of integration tests. Any ETA on them finishing? |
All green, but |
Yes, you are right, that message should fail, but it should fail with an |
we had a similar discussions with @acatangiu around here here hmm, maybe, if we know that I don't know, what is the best solution here. Regardless of returned xcm error ( |
Going to close the issue, as the release is finished. |
Let's already start with the list of things to include for the 1.1.0 release. Please everyone leave a comment with a link to a pr or issue, so we have it tracked.
I would propose that we directly start with the release after we have finally finished
1.0.0
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: