[yt-dev] 2.6 release?

Britton Smith brittonsmith at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 11:58:06 PST 2013


Nathan, I might be interested in that, in the case that I can help with
your efforts on the Profile/PhasePlot stuff.


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> I’m planning on working on yt stuff this weekend.  If anyone is interested
> in sprinting over a G+ hangout, I’d be up for that.
>
> On November 11, 2013 at 11:51:13 AM, Cameron Hummels (chummels at gmail.com<//chummels at gmail.com>)
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a compromise on the release date is to release 2.6 by mid-week
> next week?  Or even Friday of next week?  That way job apps can still
> reference the material which will be the main release, and will be put out
> before Thanksgiving (most job apps are viewed after Thanksgiving, even ones
> due prior to it), and it gives us a chance to get some due diligence on all
> of the blockers for 2.6.  I agree that we should shoot for having
> functional code (and docs) above having something out there in the wild
> quickly.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that we can and should continue to tweek the
> docs (and bugs in the code) on the 2.x branch even after 2.6 release.
>
> The main things I see as blockers on 2.6 are the doc issues I've listed as
> "blockers".  I'm going to go back through them right now, and make sure
> they're all assigned to someone, and that the responsible person knows that
> these isses are blockers and should be done in the next 1-2 weeks.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Waiting on the PR is totally fine with me.  Let's get that stuff right
>> before we release it.  I will definitely keep working the docs for it and
>> have those ready for when the Profile/PhasePlot PR is ready.
>>
>> That stuff aside, maybe here is where everyone should report in with what
>> they'd like/need to get done before the 2.6 release and when they would
>> like that release to take place.  For me, other than any additional tweaks
>> I might have to make to the Profile/Phase PR, my remaining assignments are
>> all in the docs and I should be able to get them all done this week.
>>
>> Finally, I would like to add a proposal that we allow for some additional
>> doc tweaking after the official 2.6 release.  We should definitely finish
>> all of the blocker issues that have been laid out before releasing, but
>> there will surely be small things that can be improved on that we might
>> happen across at some later date.  As this release or one soon after will
>> be the final 2.x release, I would like to leave it as close to a finished
>> product as possible.
>>
>> Britton
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  My main concern is that I’m not happy with the current state of
>>> ProfilePlot and PhasePlot going out as they exist in the open PR.  That’s
>>> not a dig on Britton - he did a great job - I just think we can do better
>>> and provide something that’s fully functional and tested.
>>>
>>>  That said, I don’t think that can happen by Friday.  As I’ve said
>>> elsewhere I’m happy to look at ProfilePlot and PhasePlot this weekend.
>>>
>>>  Britton, please don’t let this stop you from updating the docs for
>>> ProfilePlot and PhasePlot.  If anything breaks in your docs (I expect it
>>> won’t) I will update the docs myself.
>>>
>>>  -Nathan
>>>
>>> On November 11, 2013 at 10:53:37 AM, Matthew Turk (matthewturk at gmail.com<//matthewturk at gmail.com>)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Nathan,
>>>
>>> Well, so, I have to take the fall for this one. Last week, there was
>>> some discussion about what needed to happen for a release, and I
>>> misunderstood everything, evidently! I thought that the main issue
>>> was the profile/phase plot code and the remaining doc tickets. So
>>> this weekend, Britton issued the updated PR (which addressed the
>>> comments you brought up in your original comments on the PR) and was
>>> doing some docs updates.
>>>
>>> This morning, I took a look at what was going on, and wrote to Cameron
>>> asking him to decide which bugs for the docs were blockers and which
>>> were not, and if we could try to aim for having everything in a
>>> workable state by Friday, so the release could go out. (Only a few
>>> weeks overdue -- and most of those weeks were due to *me* dragging my
>>> heels!)
>>>
>>> My main concern here is: people are putting out job apps, and some of
>>> those job apps reference code that's in the yt 2.6 code base. I think
>>> a good way to "do right by contributors" is to make sure that,
>>> especially in a vulnerable time in a career, the project tries to
>>> support them in whatever way it can. I've done a poor job of
>>> implementing that, as releases have languished and gone on, and I was
>>> just trying to right the ship, as it were. Ultimately, though, I do
>>> think we should not release something we're not really happy with,
>>> although I'd like to try to avoid having perfect be the enemy of good
>>> enough. Maybe a good compromise would be to figure out what is still
>>> necessary, come up with a reasonable timescale, and discuss it openly.
>>> I screwed that up, and I'm sorry.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I know there's been a lot of talk about 2.6 being the last
>>> major 2.X release. Maybe that's put some pressure on this release
>>> that's not warranted, and I will take the blame for that, too. I
>>> anticipate we'll be fixing little things, tweaking docs, and on and
>>> on, for some time to come. Just because I would like to encourage
>>> people to try out 3.0 doesn't mean everybody has to stop using what
>>> works. I expect much of our existing userbase won't change for a
>>> while.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Cameron just pinged me about a docs issue with a Sizemore about the 2.6
>>> > release happening on Friday. Can we hold off on that for another week
>>> or
>>> > two? I'd like to be able to work on ProfilePlot and PhasePlot this
>>> weekend.
>>> >
>>> > Natha
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20131111/ad20ff57/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list