Release!

[akmjenkins]

Lots of great stuff got merged since the last release. I'm specifically looking for the replacement of latlong as it's making it impossible for me to update dependencies due to being old as stink.

Any plans on a release?

[Marthijs-Berfelo]

Lots of great stuff got merged since the last release. I'm specifically looking for the replacement of latlong as it's making it impossible for me to update dependencies due to being old as stink.

Any plans on a release?

As a matter of fact I'm also interested in a next release, but for me a new release would only make sense if it includes the null-safety changes in PR #870. These were dependent on a release of flutter_image, however #894 removes the dependency. The holdup IMHO is review/approval of the 2 PR's by @johnpryan

[mootw]

I agree with @Marthijs-Berfelo. #894 and #870 should be merged for the next release. It looks like #884 upgraded the stale dependencies from #870 due to it sitting un-merged for a while. I think flutter_map needs to take the migration before the code-base gets too fragmented between null-safety and non-null-safety.

I do not know all the maintainers but @johnpryan can we look at merging null-safety because there should not be anything blocking it now.

[kengu]

@moonag The 829-nullsafety branch is kept up to date with master. Each merge to master is also merged to this branch.

[TitanKing]

I am totally in agreement. This package is our only package of many that is not nullsafe. It is becoming really critical. Appreciate the hard work of the package greatly.

[akmjenkins]

I mean, if #829 is ready to go then go for it. But I think that deciding the next release needs to be null safety kind of glosses over the huge benefit of removing the obsolete latlong package.

[JaffaKetchup]

@akmjenkins Looking at the pubspec.yaml in the new branch (issues/829-nullsafety), it looks like they're going to be using latlong2 instead, which is both newer (and therefore hopefully not obsolete) and null-safe.
I think it would not be right to release the next update without null-safety, as it is a very popular package that still isn't migrated, and I think this should therefore be top priority.

[barbalex]

I have started my first flutter project. Searching for the ideal database I was extremely happy to have found a rather new tool: isar (https://pub.dev/packages/isar). It is frankly amazing. But soon I realized that isar only works with null safety. So I migrated the project to it. A while later when trying to implement a map I realized I was in for some trouble.

Why am I writing this? Just to give you an example how important this is to some devs.

Thank you all for working on these great tools!

[akmjenkins]

@JaffaKetchup the removal of that package was committed to master over 7 weeks ago and was the entire reason I opened this issue. The presence of latlong in flutter_map has made it difficult for me to update certain other packages by virtue of it being tied to logging < 1.0.0, which, again, is the entire reason I opened this issue.

If the maintainers feel the null safety branch is good to go to, then do it! But my only request is for tagging and releasing, not merging.

[kengu]

@JaffaKetchup I'm just waiting for an approval from @johnpryan on #870 and it will land on master. From there it's all up to @johnpryan to decide when to release.

[kassblv]

Hello what about the release version @johnpryan ?

[TitanKing]

Hello what about the release version @johnpryan?

I do not think you should expect anything soon. I would suggest to branch a working null safe version of this map package or start looking for a more active project. As nice as this project is, it standing still is becoming a problem with it being the only package not converted.

[josxha]

@TitanKing I don't think it makes sense to rush ahead and release a fork. Even though the author of flutter_map has been quiet lately, there is kengu, for example, who actively maintains the development.

If you don't want to wait any longer to migrate your own project, you can include the package directly from GitHub instead of the pub.dev version. I did it this way myself in my project and can only recommend it.

[kengu]

@TitanKing I don't think it makes sense to rush ahead and release a fork. Even though the author of flutter_map has been quiet lately, there is kengu, for example, who actively maintains the development.

If you don't want to wait any longer to migrate your own project, you can include the package directly from GitHub instead of the pub.dev version. I did it this way myself in my project and can only recommend it.

I agree with @josxha. This package is actively maintained, although this release cycle has been a bit slow.

[greensopinion]

Hey all, I've been using the null-safe branch for a couple of days and it's fantastic. Thanks for your work here.

[ibcoleman]

If you don't want to wait any longer to migrate your own project, you can include the package directly from GitHub instead of the pub.dev version.

I've done this for testing purposes, but the idea of cobbling together a short-circuit for dependency management seems like a hard sell for a production project. 😃

[barbalex]

If you don't want to wait any longer to migrate your own project, you can include the package directly from GitHub instead of the pub.dev version.

This does not work when you also use other libraries that depend on flutter_map: Those libraries can not update to null safety before flutter_map itself has. flutter_map has a bit of an ecosystem that is blocked right now.

[ibrierley]

Out of interest, what error do you get ?

[greensopinion]

Out of interest, what error do you get ?

This is the error message:

Publishable packages can't have git dependencies.
Try adding a 'publish_to: none' entry to mark the package as not for publishing or remove the git dependency.

this is how the dependency is defined in the pubspec:

dependencies:
  flutter:
    sdk: flutter
  flutter_map:
    git:
      url: https://github.com/fleaflet/flutter_map.git
      ref: issues/829-nullsafety

[ibcoleman]

@greensopinion, I've only been able to get it to work by cloning the repo, then adding a path reference in pubspec.yaml like so:

  flutter_map:
    path: ./flutter_map

[greensopinion]

Path dependencies produce an error for me:

Publishable packages can't have path dependencies.
Try adding a 'publish_to: none' entry to mark the package as not for publishing or remove the path dependency.

[mootw]

There was a null safe release a few hours ago; there is a critical bug with it #922 and the version number is not properly incremented. 0.13.0 vs 1.0.0.

I would not recommend migrating to this version until #922 gets fixed (shouldn't be long as only the minor version changed and it will break a bunch of projects).

[andreandersson]

@moonag semver allow breaking changes in all versions before 1.0.0. So version 0.13.0 is fine.

The issues in #922 however, is not. That should have been catched before the release, either by tests or review. But those changes managed to get in kinda last second... Now #923 should probably be merged and released asap.

[TitanKing]

Thanks so much for this guys.

…

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021, 19:37 Daniel Ocampo, ***@***.***> wrote: @moonag <https://github.com/MooNag> @andreandersson <https://github.com/andreandersson> flutter_map 0.13.1 has been released with that fix. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#902 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC3N4ZR4SIGXSXAD3PG4K3TRT7TXANCNFSM443O25WQ> .

[kengu]

Version 0.13.1 is released with hotfix for #922. Closing.