[yt-dev] proposal to merge yt-3.0 development into main repo

[Matthew Turk]

One item that I feel I ought to bring up is that there are two major,
disruptive changes that haven't landed yet:

* Field renaming / units
* unifying objects and rebranding things

In principle I think we can mostly provide fully-featured compatibility
layers for these, but I am still somewhat anxious about them. The first one
is basically ready to go *except* for volume rendering (waiting on a ytep
and some reimplementation) and the second is in need of some work still,
which I have not yet put in.

What if we unify, and then put out a final alpha release of 3 before these
land? For big disruptive changes it is probably in our best interests to
ease the process of switching branches - thus unifying the repos.
On Nov 26, 2013 12:10 PM, "Stuart Mumford" <stuart at mumford.me.uk> wrote:

> +1
> On 26 Nov 2013 15:33, "Britton Smith" <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John, if you have a fork of yt-3.0 and a fork of yt, you should be able
>> to do the following:
>> hg push yt-3.0-fork yt-fork
>> Then, you should be able to issue PR from your yt-fork.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:28 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we detail how to get changes in our yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repos into
>>> the yt-3.0 branch of yt_analysis/yt? I'm guessing it's simple but probably
>>> not as simple as hitting the PR button on Bitbucket.
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:38 AM, j s oishi <jsoishi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1. Let's do this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be +1 on this.  Keep the yt-3.0 branch separate, make
>>>>> yt_analysis/yt-3.0 read-only, and move yt-3.0 the branch itself into
>>>>> the main yt_analysis/yt repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM, John Wise <jwise at physics.gatech.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As someone that just moved to the yt-3.0 repo (and not having much
>>>>> time for
>>>>> > dev anymore...), I think this is a good idea.  Having it separate
>>>>> was a
>>>>> > barrier for me because 2.x worked for most of my analysis, and I
>>>>> just kept
>>>>> > on using 2.x because of convenience.  However, if the latest changes
>>>>> were in
>>>>> > the main repo, then users could easily switch to the 3.0 branch and
>>>>> test
>>>>> > things out.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>> > John
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 11/26/2013 07:20 AM, Britton Smith wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi all,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Now that we have pushed out the last (or nearly the last) major
>>>>> release
>>>>> >> of yt-2.x, many are now joining the effort to work on yt-3.0.  As
>>>>> you
>>>>> >> may have noticed, there is a yt-3.0 branch in the main yt repo
>>>>> hosted at
>>>>> >> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt.  However, most of the actual
>>>>> >> development has been happening in a separate yt-3.0 repo
>>>>> >> (https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt-3.0).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I think it may now be time to consider moving yt-3.0 development
>>>>> over to
>>>>> >> the main repository.  I think this will lower the barrier of entry
>>>>> for a
>>>>> >> number of people and should not be a big problem to users of 2.x now
>>>>> >> that that version has mostly stabilized.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> As for logistics, a number of people have done work in forks of the
>>>>> >> yt-3.0, so we should not remove it entirely.  Instead, I propose
>>>>> making
>>>>> >> it read-only, and having people push their changes to a fork of the
>>>>> main
>>>>> >> yt repo and working off of that from now on.  The magic of mercurial
>>>>> >> should make this relatively painless.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thoughts?  +/-1?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Britton
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>>>>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > John Wise
>>>>> > Assistant Professor of Physics
>>>>> > Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Georgia Tech
>>>>> > http://cosmo.gatech.edu
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131126/23b5f4d0/attachment.htm>