[yt-dev] 2.6 release?

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 16:04:57 PST 2013 

Hi Britton,

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am +2 on Kacper sending the announcement.
>
> We also still have 51 open issues tagged for version 2.6.  Of those, only 11
> are listed as blockers and are all documentation related.  I am assigned two
> of those and both can be done by tomorrow.
>
> Of the 40 non-blocker issues, 20 are not even assigned.  Maybe we should go
> through those and figure out where they stand for the release.  I think some
> may need to be dealt with.  Should we try to have a quick hangout to figure
> that out?

I agree.  I'd prefer that we focus on the blockers for a 2.6 release,
and then we can either assign, move, or close the remaining ones for a
later time.  Would that work?

I could also do a hangout tomorrow morning (east coast us time) to
work through a few.

-Matt

>
> Britton
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Do we think a release tomorrow is still feasible?  I think there are
>> remaining pull requests for the code base (and I owe some tests for
>> the profile plotter) and there are three outstanding doc PRs, too.
>>
>> Additionally, when the release goes out, what does everybody think of
>> asking Kacper to send the announcement?
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry--let me be more clear--next week's Friday.
>> >
>> > On Nov 11, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Cameron Hummels <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)
>> >>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

More information about the yt-dev mailing list