You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
One more thing to include that I wish I had considered earlier: since this will be v0.14.0 (see above comment), I think we should get #2529 in.
As a reminder, for the transposition functions that provide return_components=True, that issue is to change the component column names from sky_diffuse, circumsolar, etc to instead be poa_sky_diffuse, poa_circumsolar, etc. It's a breaking change that we can't deprecate (without something like #2530), so "ripping off the bandaid" in a .0 release is as good as we can do. This will pave a consistent path forward for #1553.
Let's wait until the new year if we're going to make a breaking change. I suspect this will break someone's production code and they will panic to fix it before the holidays.
If we're opening up v0.14 to other breaking changes: #2543 and the bug fix in #2612 although I think I should take over.
Neither of these would have breaking changes today, would they? Both need deprecations first.
Let's wait until the new year if we're going to make a breaking change. I suspect this will break someone's production code and they will panic to fix it before the holidays.
It's a good thought, but the change we're talking about (adding poa_ to a few column names) isn't very difficult to accommodate. And it's always an option to temporarily pin to pvlib<0.14, if they aren't already. Or do I underestimate the issue?
I agree that both options are trivial fixes to you and I. But not if you're the new person debugging failures in a complicated stack while all the senior people are out of office for 1-2 weeks. This is one of the more hostile changes that we can make in that it has no deprecation period and the functions are key parts of many modeling workflows.
Great to hear about this. To be honest, the past few months were terrible and I had to stop working on #2529 and it would be much easier to integrate this as an assumedly breaking change.
@kandersolar if you have other things you could work on, I can take charge (I have it halfway done on my local pvlib clone). Could set this as my 2025 goal :-D A nice follow-up would be to differentiate diffuse/direct IAM losses within the ModelChain.
I agree that both options are trivial fixes to you and I. But not if you're the new person debugging failures in a complicated stack while all the senior people are out of office for 1-2 weeks. This is one of the more hostile changes that we can make in that it has no deprecation period and the functions are key parts of many modeling workflows.
Do people really update pvlib automatically in their workflows? And without some prior testing? And with out the ability to roll back changes? I assume we're talking about commercial users here.
Activity
adriesse commentedon Dec 2, 2025
I think it's just a matter of turning the latest comments into code.
RDaxini commentedon Dec 5, 2025
Some minor docs changes being made in
might be worth including
echedey-ls commentedon Dec 8, 2025
kandersolar commentedon Dec 15, 2025
I plan to make the release tomorrow, after merging:
I suppose this release will be 0.14.0 given that we're calling the PSM3 removals "breaking changes":
pvlib-python/docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew/v0.13.2.rst
Lines 7 to 11 in 9e267ca
kandersolar commentedon Dec 16, 2025
One more thing to include that I wish I had considered earlier: since this will be v0.14.0 (see above comment), I think we should get #2529 in.
As a reminder, for the transposition functions that provide
return_components=True, that issue is to change the component column names fromsky_diffuse,circumsolar, etc to instead bepoa_sky_diffuse,poa_circumsolar, etc. It's a breaking change that we can't deprecate (without something like #2530), so "ripping off the bandaid" in a .0 release is as good as we can do. This will pave a consistent path forward for #1553.I'll submit a PR for #2529 shortly.
cwhanse commentedon Dec 16, 2025
If we're opening up v0.14 to other breaking changes: #2543 and the bug fix in #2612 although I think I should take over.
wholmgren commentedon Dec 16, 2025
Let's wait until the new year if we're going to make a breaking change. I suspect this will break someone's production code and they will panic to fix it before the holidays.
kandersolar commentedon Dec 16, 2025
Neither of these would have breaking changes today, would they? Both need deprecations first.
It's a good thought, but the change we're talking about (adding
poa_to a few column names) isn't very difficult to accommodate. And it's always an option to temporarily pin topvlib<0.14, if they aren't already. Or do I underestimate the issue?cwhanse commentedon Dec 16, 2025
Correct. I suppose they can wait, although it would be good to conclude #2543 and include in this release.
wholmgren commentedon Dec 16, 2025
I agree that both options are trivial fixes to you and I. But not if you're the new person debugging failures in a complicated stack while all the senior people are out of office for 1-2 weeks. This is one of the more hostile changes that we can make in that it has no deprecation period and the functions are key parts of many modeling workflows.
kandersolar commentedon Dec 16, 2025
Ok, waiting until January it is!
echedey-ls commentedon Dec 16, 2025
I will be updating #2543 to v0.14 to ease it's inclusion. It's not trivial to change that many v0.13.2's. Thanks for all the work guys.
RDaxini commentedon Dec 17, 2025
If we are waiting until January, #2624 may also be a suitable candidate for the next release.
ramaroesilva commentedon Dec 17, 2025
Great to hear about this. To be honest, the past few months were terrible and I had to stop working on #2529 and it would be much easier to integrate this as an assumedly breaking change.
@kandersolar if you have other things you could work on, I can take charge (I have it halfway done on my local pvlib clone). Could set this as my 2025 goal :-D A nice follow-up would be to differentiate diffuse/direct IAM losses within the ModelChain.
adriesse commentedon Dec 17, 2025
Do people really update pvlib automatically in their workflows? And without some prior testing? And with out the ability to roll back changes? I assume we're talking about commercial users here.
RDaxini commentedon Jan 7, 2026
What is the planned release date now?
kandersolar commentedon Jan 13, 2026
I arbitrarily nominate Jan 15 (this Thursday). I'm catching up on pvlib notifications today and will push on remaining release items after that.
[-]v0.13.2 planning[/-][+]v0.14.0 planning[/+]