[yt-dev] Proposal: Wind down 2.X development

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Wed Aug 14 09:58:01 PDT 2013


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> One wrinkle: will we be sticking with the 'yt' and 'yt-3.0' branches? I see
> no problem with this in principle, although we learned with enzo development
> a while back that branches can be confusing. It might help if `yt instinfo`
> reported the branch and if we open a wiki page or something that we can
> point people to describing the state of things.

I think at some point we should merge yt-3.0 *into* yt, and then 2.x
can live inside stable for a while until we decide that 3.0 has
reached that point.

In retrospect, the branch "yt-3.0" was not a good idea, since it will
have a natural conflict with the release tag.  So I think when it's
time to release, we can probably just skip right to 3.1.  Or maybe
3000?  Not sure.

-Matt

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on combining development and winding down 2.x.
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I'm just coming back online, but earlier this week I had the
>>> > opportunity to talk to a few people about yt -- specifically, Nathan.
>>> >
>>> > There are a few disadvantages to continuing to develop in parallel:
>>> >
>>> > * Features and bug fixes don't get ported with regularity
>>> > * Documentation is not being developed for 3.0 explicitly
>>> > * Problems that may be present in 3.0 are not being noticed
>>> > * New users (particularly for new codes) find themselves in a bit of
>>> > a bind with how to install
>>> >
>>> > There are a few disadvantages to combining development:
>>> >
>>> > * Not everyone who uses patch-based codes has moved
>>> > * All of the codes have not yet been ported (this is something I can
>>> > do)
>>> > * A few things do not yet work (boolean objects and clump finding come
>>> > to mind)
>>> >
>>> > If we do decide to move soon, there are a few things that are major
>>> > blockers which I would take on:
>>> >
>>> > * Porting the remaining codes
>>> > * Fixing IO for spatial particle fields in patch-based codes, which
>>> > is currently a major performance bottleneck
>>> > * Rewriting clump finding to work with 3.0
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, I'd like to move all the Python3 changes and the Boxlib
>>> > refactor to yt-3.0 if we do this.
>>> >
>>> > If there is support for this, I'd be happy to write this into a YTEP.
>>> > I think we could continue to provide bug fixes for 2.x and perhaps do
>>> > one more "major" release (2.6) and then only bug fixes from then on.
>>> >
>>> > -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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>



More information about the yt-dev mailing list