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

John ZuHone jzuhone at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 07:28:10 PST 2013


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20131126/de2177aa/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list