# Status and Tagging of JuMP 0.18 on Julia 0.7

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740>\
**Category:** Optimization (Mathematical)\
**Created:** [July 30, 2018, 2:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740 "2018-07-30T14:34:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ExpandingMan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/expandingman/32/866_2.png) [@ExpandingMan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ExpandingMan)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 2:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/1 "2018-07-30T14:34:30Z")

</div>

I was glad to see that the PR was merged for updating JuMP 0.18 for Julia 0.7. I was wondering if there were any plans to tag this as 0.18.3, or if it was awaiting further updates (and if so, what needs updating).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![miles.lubin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/miles.lubin/32/279_2.png) [@miles.lubin](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/miles.lubin)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/2 "2018-07-30T19:02:52Z")

</div>

“The PR” for JuMP 0.18 and Julia 0.7 is a bit of an overstatement :). We’ve had multiple PRs to update the `release-0.18` branch for Julia 0.7 but there are still tests that are failing (give it a try locally). Most JuMP contributors are currently focusing on JuMP 0.19. PRs are quite welcome.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ExpandingMan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/expandingman/32/866_2.png) [@ExpandingMan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ExpandingMan)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/3 "2018-07-30T19:55:01Z")

</div>

Ok, thanks for the update. I think it’s safe to say that many of us are going to have to have some tagged version of JuMP available on 0.7 before 0.19, so I’ll definitely make some PR’s for this at some point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![miles.lubin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/miles.lubin/32/279_2.png) [@miles.lubin](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/miles.lubin)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/4 "2018-08-01T14:54:59Z")

</div>

By the way, an easy way to help without needing to get too deep into JuMP code is to update your favorite solver. Only some of the solvers are passing tests and deprecation-free on 0.7. The main thing to note when making changes is that we’re using `Compat` to keep the packages working on both 0.6 and 0.7.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ExpandingMan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/expandingman/32/866_2.png) [@ExpandingMan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ExpandingMan)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/5 "2018-08-01T15:04:27Z")

</div>

Yup, thanks for the advice.

Ideally I’d much prefer to get things up and running on 0.19 instead, but unfortunately the timing worked out really awkwardly for me and I need something for “production” within the next month or so (even though I’ll definitely be updating whatever it is for 0.19 as soon as it’s tagged). Whether the ultimate solution will be to freeze on a commit of 0.19 and use that or to update 0.18 for 0.7 I haven’t decided yet. If the latter, I’ll need it working, so I’ll definitely be pitching in before long.

There are a few places where I have some “hacks” to make linear algebra operations fast, and I feel it would be much more productive to spend my time polishing those and making PR’s to 0.19 for them rather than updating 0.18, but I’ll have to dig into it a bit to see if that’s an option.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![miles.lubin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/miles.lubin/32/279_2.png) [@miles.lubin](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/miles.lubin)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/6 "2018-08-01T15:07:24Z")

</div>

My recommendation for a production setup in the next month would be to continue to use Julia 0.6.x until the package ecosystem stabilizes on 0.7.

JuMP 0.19 is definitely not ready for production use before a release is tagged. We’re continuing to break things as we speak.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ExpandingMan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/expandingman/32/866_2.png) [@ExpandingMan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ExpandingMan)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/status-and-tagging-of-jump-0-18-on-julia-0-7/12740/7 "2018-08-01T15:11:27Z")

</div>

> [@miles.lubin](#):
>
> My recommendation for a production setup

“Production” was in quotes for a reason, I need something cranking out results within the next month, but it probably won’t need to be truly stable for a couple of months after that (waiting on other people to do things), so I’m not freaking out about it yet. Regardless, the environment is going to be containerized and completely frozen. I’ve been working with 0.7 for a while now and I think I’m comfortable with moving everything to 0.7. That’s good advice about 0.19 though, I haven’t yet been able to closely track how stable that is yet.