[yt-dev] na => np in 3.0 and 2.x

[Nathan Goldbaum]

Strongly -1 on merging to stable as it will break user scripts. I know 
I'll have to update mine wherever I use the numpy imported along with 
yt.mods.

-Nathan

On 8/31/12 7:06 PM, Matthew Turk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Okay, looks like everybody's pretty much in favor.  Anthony, would it
> be possible to run the script on the tip of the 2.x repository and
> issue a PR for that?  And, do we want to merge to stable so that any
> big bug fixes get applied there before doing so?
>
> -Matt
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nearly everyone who has replied so far is on board with the third
>> option, which is to apply the same change to both.  Anthony and Kacper
>> also had a discussion in the PR about the cosmology routines, which
>> seem to be (!!!) non-functional in some particular configurations of
>> the universe.  I'll suggest that we wait until Wednesday, and if
>> nobody objects by then, we accept this PR and then also a similar one
>> for the dev branch.  I'd prefer we not apply these changes to the
>> stable branch at this time.
>>
>> In IRC, Martin Geisler also pointed me at these StackOverflow
>> questions which address merges and workflows like this:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/a/9533927/110204
>> http://stackoverflow.com/a/9500764/110204
>>
>> In short, by applying to both, we're going to be okay.  :)
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> Obviously, I am +1 for #3 and +0 on #2 (no need to create a maintenance
>>> headache if you don't have to).  I originally did this in the 3.0 fork just
>>> because
>>> I thought it was more of a sandbox than the 2.x series.  I am also +0 on #1,
>>> if that is what is best.
>>>
>>> Be Well
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius.kk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 27.08.2012 16:08, Matthew Turk wrote:
>>>>> Because this could be disruptive for any major, outstanding forks, I
>>>>> also think it needs to be discussed here.  (I'm actually kind of -1 on
>>>>> big discussions happening in pull requests.)  My vote is for #3.  I'd
>>>>> rather get this over with, since we all know it probably ought to
>>>>> happen at some point in the future.
>>>> Hi,
>>>> there's a way to minimize the disruption on any outstanding forks,
>>>> namely to automate the process. If we use the same "tool" on both main
>>>> repo and the fork, the difference should be close to none.
>>>> In this case something along the lines:
>>>>
>>>> find . -name "*.py" \
>>>>     -exec sed -e "s/\([[:punct:]]\|[[:space:]]\)na\./\1np\./g" \
>>>>     -e "s/numpy as na/numpy as np/g" -i {} \;
>>>>
>>>> should do the trick. I haven't check yet if that reproduces Anthony's PR
>>>> so use it carefully ;)
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kacper
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org