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

John ZuHone jzuhone at gmail.com
Wed Aug 14 09:45:08 PDT 2013


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




More information about the yt-dev mailing list