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

[Nathan Goldbaum]

+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.


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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20130814/20629e74/attachment.html>