[yt-dev] Near- and mid-term roadmap: 2.4, 2.x, 3.0

[Samuel W Skillman]

Matt,

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam,
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My goals for 2.5:
> >
> > Re-written, modularized, amr_kdtree.  This will allow for kd-tree decomp
> of
> > generalized collections of grids as well as future optimization, as well
> as
> > parallelization over arbitrary N processors, not just power of 2!
> > Alpha channel integration for the rendering, allowing for easier control
> of
> > opaque and transparent features in the same image.
>
> This sounds really awesome.
>
> >
> > Neither of these necessarily belong in the 3.0 development IMO, but I
> could
> > be convinced to work in that sandbox.  Both of these are working in an
> alpha
> > state right now.
>
> I agree, these don't *need* to be in 3.0, so let's wait till that
> branch is feature complete before I start selling you on moving the
> dev there.  :)
>

Sounds good.


>
> ...but ... do you think the walk and the decomp could be separated, so
> we could feed it an octree?  In the 3.0 branch I've got an oct
> geometry handler which could potentially be instrumented with the
> necessary additional info to allow fast traversal...
>

Yes.  I think it should be straightforward to write a modified decomp for
octree that retains the reduction methods for combining the final image.
 Then we can just pass each unit of octree to the fast traversal, whatever
that ends up being.


>
> -Matt
>
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Now that 2.4 is out, I wanted to update you on where this roadmap
> >> (from early June, two months ago today!) is.  It slipped a bit, but I
> >> think we're still broadly on track.
> >>
> >> My current plan is to focus on development of the 3.0 branch/fork,
> >> which is located here:
> >>
> >> http://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt-3.0
> >>
> >> It is nearly functional for all major functions from the patch-based
> >> perspective, but I am still working on projections and a handful of
> >> other operations -- flushing data back to grids (for clump finding),
> >> masking of cells (for extracted regions), and a few other medium-level
> >> features.  Once it has reached feature completeness for patch-based, I
> >> think it will be ready to have many of you start testing it, kicking
> >> the tires, maybe even moving your development there.  I'll update this
> >> group as I make progress, but I'd also be very appreciative if anyone
> >> wants to start testing it with me and working on it.  I'm quite
> >> excited about some aspects of it, and I've already been pleased with
> >> simplifications in several areas.
> >>
> >> We should still probably leave open the possibility of a 2.5 release,
> >> but with a much shorter changelog than 2.4 had!  :)
> >>
> >> I'll be around in IRC as well as on the mailing list if anyone has any
> >> concerns, suggestions, or wants to get involved in this.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Sam and I are working on issuing a PR about the volume rendering
> >> > refactor.  This is the last major code change to go in place for 2.4,
> >> > pending the quad_proj changes being accepted or rejected.  I'm still
> >> > thinking about this refine_by issue, and that might also make it in.
> >> > After the volume_refactor, it's just testing and documentation left:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issues?status=new&status=open&milestone=2.4
> >> >
> >> > After 2.4 is released, I am going to shift my new development
> >> > exclusively to the yt-3.0 branch, which is currently hosted here:
> >> >
> >> > http://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt-3.0
> >> >
> >> > This will include geometry refactoring and many remaining
> >> > de-Enzoifications of the code base.  3.0 is nearing a usable state,
> >> > but will not be ready for production for a while.  However, I think
> >> > that allowing the codebases to diverge too rapidly will lead to
> >> > problems: a fracturing.  So once the 3.0 codebase can muster feature
> >> > parity with 2.x, I am going to ask that all development on the 2.x
> >> > branch cease, and all pull requests for features and new functionality
> >> > be applied only to the 3.0 branch.  In advance of this, I would like
> >> > to solicit help: we've identified a number of relatively
> >> > straightforward changes to this code base that can and should be made.
> >> >  For instance, the changing of field names.  I'd also like to consider
> >> > moving to a more spread-out source code layout, like one class per
> >> > file.  Changes like these make it difficult to do cross-branch merges
> >> > and transplants, which is why I would like to save them for after
> >> > feature parity has been reached and development on 2.x has halted.
> >> >
> >> > Previous threads:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2012-February/001852.html
> >> >
> >> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2012-February/001868.html
> >> >
> >> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2012-February/001830.html
> >> >
> >> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2012-March/001941.html
> >> >
> >> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2012-March/001949.html
> >> >
> >> > If anyone has any strong objections to this strategy, please reply.
> >> >
> >> > Estimated Timeline:
> >> >
> >> >  * June 26, 2.4 release
> >> >  * July 30, 3.0 reaches rough feature parity
> >> >  * Fall sometime: 3.0 merged into main 'yt' branch
> >> >  * Some time after that: 3.0 released
> >> >
> >> > Criteria for Feature Parity:
> >> >
> >> >  * All patch-based AMR codes support data region selection
> >> >  * Parallelism is functional for all parallel-capable routines
> >> >  * All patch-based AMR codes support projections, slices, cutting
> planes
> >> >  * All patch-based AMR codes support volume rendering
> >> >  * All patch-based AMR codes support halo finding
> >> >  * Octree-based AMR codes (RAMSES and ART) support data region
> selection
> >> >  * Octree-based AMR codes (RAMSES and ART) support slices, projections
> >> > and cutting planes
> >> >
> >> > If any of you are interested in helping with this reengineering
> >> > effort, I would be extremely interested in collaborating.  My goal for
> >> > this effort is to focus on making yt a future-compatible code, and
> >> > changing it from an organically grown system into one that we design
> >> > based on the years of experience we all have now had with it.
> >> >
> >> > -Matt
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>



-- 
Samuel W. Skillman
DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellow
Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy
University of Colorado at Boulder
samuel.skillman[at]colorado.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20120807/1a769757/attachment.htm>