[doc] Remove official support of macOS 13 (Ventura) #22004
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+@mwoehlke-kitware for review. This should remove the remaining references to "Ventura" from drake's documentation. This PR can go in first, followed by the drake-ci and drake-jenkins-jobs changes to actually remove the jobs
Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to have Sequoia listed explicitly (but as "TBD") to make it clear it's on the way. I pushed the patch for that.
Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits), missing label for release notes (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 2 unresolved discussions, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits), missing label for release notes (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
doc/_pages/installation.md line 26 at r1 (raw file):
| Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (Jammy Jellyfish) | x86_64 | 3.10 ⁽³⁾ | March 2026 | | Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (Noble Numbat) | x86_64 | 3.12 ⁽³⁾ | March 2028 | | macOS Ventura (13) | arm64 ⁽⁵⁾ | 3.12 ⁽³⁾ | October 2024 |
Should we also remove the (5) note?
tools/wheel/wheel_builder/macos.py line 138 at r1 (raw file):
# Xcode updates may change the default -mmacosx-version-min when not # specified. For example, Xcode 14.1 on monterey (macOS 12.x) was using a
I'm not sure we should actually remove this, as it's part of the documentation why we're setting MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET. Unless we remove that logic entirely. (Hopefully it isn't needed any more, though we might want to keep it for paranoia's sake.)
BetsyMcPhail
force-pushed
the
remove-ventura
branch
from
596cd51 to
5b95c62
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 2 unresolved discussions, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits), missing label for release notes
tools/wheel/wheel_builder/macos.py line 138 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, mwoehlke-kitware (Matthew Woehlke) wrote…
I'm not sure we should actually remove this, as it's part of the documentation why we're setting
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET. Unless we remove that logic entirely. (Hopefully it isn't needed any more, though we might want to keep it for paranoia's sake.)
I wasn't sure about this, it's slightly annoying noise when looking for ventura references... I'll put it back in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 2 unresolved discussions, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits), missing label for release notes
doc/_pages/installation.md line 26 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, mwoehlke-kitware (Matthew Woehlke) wrote…
Should we also remove the (5) note?
Maybe? Or as part of #19057?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 2 unresolved discussions, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits), missing label for release notes (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
doc/_pages/installation.md line 26 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, BetsyMcPhail (Betsy McPhail) wrote…
Maybe? Or as part of #19057?
I plan to ship one last x86_64 wheel (if I can) for next week's 1.34 release. I will set myself a reminder in #21956 to adjust this documentation, so we can skip it as part of this review.
tools/wheel/wheel_builder/macos.py line 138 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, BetsyMcPhail (Betsy McPhail) wrote…
I wasn't sure about this, it's slightly annoying noise when looking for ventura references... I'll put it back in
This sentence is just a "for example". IMO the remaining text still provides a sufficient justification without the example.
I'm OK if you want to keep the for-example @mwoehlke-kitware but in that case please propose (here; or via git push) some specific wording that doesn't have false-positive grep hits for macOS version names and numbers that we are purging. This matches Betsy's point that this text will keep causing us pain every fall when we grep for the verboten macOS words during an upgrade.
jwnimmer-tri
added
the
release notes: fix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dismissed @mwoehlke-kitware from a discussion.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits) (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, needs platform reviewer assigned, needs at least two assigned reviewers, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits) (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
doc/_pages/installation.md line 26 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, jwnimmer-tri (Jeremy Nimmer) wrote…
I plan to ship one last x86_64 wheel (if I can) for next week's 1.34 release. I will set myself a reminder in #21956 to adjust this documentation, so we can skip it as part of this review.
👍
tools/wheel/wheel_builder/macos.py line 138 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, jwnimmer-tri (Jeremy Nimmer) wrote…
This sentence is just a "for example". IMO the remaining text still provides a sufficient justification without the example.
I'm OK if you want to keep the for-example @mwoehlke-kitware but in that case please propose (here; or via git push) some specific wording that doesn't have false-positive grep hits for macOS version names and numbers that we are purging. This matches Betsy's point that this text will keep causing us pain every fall when we grep for the verboten macOS words during an upgrade.
Sure, I'm fine with being vague about the versions. The "goal" in my mind is rather to clarify what "may change the default -mmacosx-version-min" means, why we care, and that there is a history of this happening.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ping to @mwoehlke-kitware for final feature-LGTM.
Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Dismissed @mwoehlke-kitware from a discussion.
Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee mwoehlke-kitware, commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits) (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
tools/wheel/wheel_builder/macos.py line 138 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, mwoehlke-kitware (Matthew Woehlke) wrote…
Sure, I'm fine with being vague about the versions. The "goal" in my mind is rather to clarify what "may change the default -mmacosx-version-min" means, why we care, and that there is a history of this happening.
Done
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: commits need curation (https://drake.mit.edu/reviewable.html#curated-commits) (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)
…22004) Co-authored-by: Jeremy Nimmer <[email protected]>
Towards #21978
This change is