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

[Anthony Scopatz]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> 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?


Yup, I'll do so within the next hour or so,

Be Well
Anthony


>  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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20120831/a20558b9/attachment.html>