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

Cameron Hummels chummels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 14 13:43:52 PDT 2013


Fair enough.  I'm +1 on this proposal.  I think getting back to a single
line of development would be beneficial.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm personally wary of switching because I'm concerned that all of my
> > scripts are going to break (some of them are broken from previous
> versions
> > of 2.2 or 2.3 to the dev version as it is).
>
> You should not feel obligated to switch.  Additionally, if you had
> breakages between 2.2 and 2.3, those should be reported as bugs --
> this is new information to me, and unless a particular deprecation was
> noted in the release notes, it's a major problem.
>
> > I know that this move to
> > combining 2.x with 3.0 will be better for the developers, but will it be
> > better for end users?  Or is the idea that the devs switch first, figure
> out
> > where everything is broken, and then patch it up before the end users use
> > it?
>
> There are a number of user-facing benefits in the 3.0 codebase, but
> yes, that is the general idea.
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cameron Hummels
> > Postdoctoral Researcher
> > Steward Observatory
> > University of Arizona
> > http://chummels.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
>



-- 
Cameron Hummels
Postdoctoral Researcher
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
http://chummels.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20130814/78e34146/attachment.htm>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list