BTW, why not make PR mandatory (except in emergency situations)?

Also, before release, we should make sure that at least the Colors.jl test passes.

The Tuple() constructor in PR #260 is debatable, but since there has actually been no opposition to it for three years.
So, I see no problem with its inclusion in v0.11 as a non-public method. Of course, it is not recommended to be used in downstream packages

I think it is safe to do this step-by-step, basically in a timeline, although we could put together several PRs.

PR #302 makes StyledStringsExt technically backportable to v0.11.
However, as StyledStrings is currently unregistered, there is no guarantee that StyledStringsExt will actually work on Julia v1.9 or v1.10.
Also, StyledStringsExt can be substituted with a monkey patch.
For these reasons, I do not think that the backporting should be done.

The comment above in addition to #293 (comment) should likely be updated in light of recent changes, c.f. #293 (comment).

Shouldn't we merge PR #307 first?

Before what? I'm just prompting that the description of the state of affairs needs updating.

The decision to label or unlabel should be based not only on whether it is factually true, but also on whether it is in the public interest. I will update the status.

@kimikage Trying to see if we can remove the deprecated bindings and get a v0.12 released. Would you have time to help get it through? I hope you don't mind some of the recent changes I made to reduce CI running time. Happy to revert anything that you may not like.

The main reason a quick 0.12 release would help is to fix the deprecation warnings that show up across the ecosystem. Perhaps much of the reorganization you are discussing here could be considered for a future 0.13 release.

@kimikage I also just noticed your status that says you are under medical care. I hope your health is better and certainly do not mean to pull you into a bunch of PRs at a time you may need to focus on your health.

Thanks for restarting the upgrading conversation.

FWIW, I could perhaps help upgrade the ecosystem in December. Right now, it's just too much work in the company :( that have absolutely zero bandwidth to proceed with this.

Thank you @johnnychen94 for reviewing and chiming in. I am releasing 0.12 right now, and will update this issue on major work to 0.13. Hopefully the ecosystem is in a better maintained condition when you are able to find some time!

Thanks for all this work, @ViralBShah. I haven't tested this but starting this week I will have some time. Let me know how I can help.

More globally, I'm also hoping to be able to return to pushing JuliaImages forward. The most urgent step, in my mind, is to switch to a mono-repo. That's not a small project, unfortunately. But 🤞 we may have some JuliaImages-development funding coming (I submitted a NASA proposal and it was approved for funding, with uncertain timeline), and if that happens I can delegate my lab programmer to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

Thanks @timholy. That would be awesome! I have been generally trying to maintain a few packages and push them along in my free time, and seeing where we can find new maintainers etc.

The deprecation warning makes people think that the package is not maintained, and I given @dgleich's efforts, I felt it was a good opportunity to get rid of it and tag everything.

I believe @ChrisRackauckas is working towards better tooling for monorepo of packages kind of thing. It would be good to check with what they are doing in SciML before starting the refactor.

The 0.13 milestone only has one issue remaining - #257. So much of what was planned for 0.12 is in the tagged release.

JuliaLang/julia#55516 @KristofferC is the one driving it from there.