[yt-dev] 3.0 Documentation

Fri Dec 13 08:38:19 PST 2013

My sentiments are along the lines of Matt's and Nathan's. If you're looking to avoid the kind of situation that led to the need for a sprint for the 2.6 docs, I'm afraid that it's already too late (at least as it appears to me). Whatever effort that we undertake for these docs will have to be a substantial one, no matter what. 

And I really think that Nathan's point is that compared to what's been done, there literally is only "epsilon" left. It does not appear to me that we are in a situation where we're going to keep adding tons of new functionality to 3.0 before the release. Others are more knowledgable about 3.0 than I, however, so I am most open to being corrected on this.

I also share Matt's concern about incomplete docs for an incomplete release having a public face, not that I want to hide anything from anyone, but there is always a tendency for many to go for the most bleeding-edge thing. When this happens, and their analysis inevitably breaks, that builds a perception (whether fairly or not) that there is a bad design. So, although we always keep our development completely out in the open, we would save ourselves and our users lots of headaches by not promoting code that isn't ready for prime time. 

Giving the 3.0 docs a place on the front page docs list is unfortunately a way to run that risk, albeit inadvertently. If we want to place 3.0 docs on the web without such a prominent link, that would be acceptable to me.

For my part I am happy to work on docs soon, but the timing at the moment isn't perfect.

John ZuHone
Laboratory for High-Energy Astrophysics
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
8800 Greenbelt Rd., Mail Code 662
Greenbelt, MD 20771
(w) 301-286-2531
(m) 781-708-5004
john.zuhone at nasa.gov
jzuhone at gmail.com

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."  
> 
> This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid.  The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.
> 
> 
> I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public.  
> 
> Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.
> 
> Cameron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Matt.  If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.
>> 
>> I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.
>> 
>>> On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet
>>> > buildable.  I can build them locally.  The only thing that prevented me from
>>> > doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for
>>> > them to not fail.  Is this what you mean, Kacper?
>>> >
>>> > I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user
>>> > base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to
>>> > the code as they make them.
>>> 
>>> I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs
>>> will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.
>>> 
>>> > Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.
>>> 
>>> I definitely do!  The best way to get started is to go through the
>>> cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point,
>>> but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the
>>> 2.x repo.
>>> 
>>> Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.
>>> 
>>> -Matt
>>> 
>>> >
>>> > Cameron
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Cameron,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for taking this on!  I think that we should definitely push up
>>> >> some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not
>>> >> sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date.
>>> >> Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process
>>> >> won't pass until they are, so that's good.
>>> >>
>>> >> Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some
>>> >> time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them
>>> >> mostly up to speed.  One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we
>>> >> haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer
>>> >> aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different
>>> >> in some key ways.
>>> >>
>>> >> -MAtt
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hello everyone,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0
>>> >> > branch, I
>>> >> > propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website.  Right now, a
>>> >> > yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor
>>> >> > changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation.  Unfortunately,
>>> >> > there is
>>> >> > no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the
>>> >> > repository and building locally.  I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the
>>> >> > webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when
>>> >> > they
>>> >> > contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase
>>> >> > may
>>> >> > get considerably out of sync with the docs.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > Kacper.  What do people think?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cameron
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > 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
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20131213/0cef6755/attachment.htm>