[Yt-dev] Migration to 2.0 being the stable branch

[Britton Smith]

I'm in favor of this.  I've been really happy this last month with the new
imports in the reorganized branch.  I'm finding it to be way more intuitive,
which is exactly what we want.  I think the key is to stress, if you're
looking for your import, you don't have to go any further than the api.py
files.

Britton

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to set a timeline for merging the current "yt" branch into
> being the "stable" branch.  I think this could coincide with a 2.0
> release, but I'm not sure that the entire checklist for 2.0 is going
> to get done in a reasonable timescale.  (I'm working on the
> documentation in my spare time, and I think that we are likely to have
> full support for FLASH, mostly support small RAMSES datasets, and
> limited ART support.  A few wishlist items won't make it.)
>
> Has anyone here not upgraded to the reorganized branch?  I feel like
> the people who are reading this are pretty likely to be able to work
> out bugs/import errors/missing functionality.
>
> Anyway, barring any objections here, in a few weeks I'll send out an
> email to yt-users notifying everyone that scripts will have to change
> slightly (with a key for swapping them) with any new upgrades to the
> codebase and then by the middle/end of December perform the merge,
> with an affiliated release of 2.0.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101108/5fe685b8/attachment.htm>