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

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 09:49:41 PST 2013


Hi Nathan,

yt update updates along the DAG, and won't switch named branches. Same for
install script and hg update.

Clones will default to the tip *or* the @ bookmark in recent versions, but
the install script for instance always specifies a branch. So until branch
yt-3.0 is p2 of a merge commit on branch yt, I don't think we're in trouble.

And, I think we can and should still take PRs for branch "yt". :)

Matt
On Nov 26, 2013 12:40 PM, "Nathan Goldbaum" <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Matt's suggestion.
>
> One possible issue: does 'yt update' update to the tip of the repo or the
> yt branch?  I would also be careful to make sure we educate everyone about
> hg branches which I know were confusing in the past for enzo development,
> although we had many more branches in enzo.  In particular, fresh clones of
> the repo will by default update to the tip, which is likely to be 3.0.
>  Is that an issue?
>
> Second, will we still allow PRs into the yt branch?  I know we're not
> planning on adding new features to 2.X, but how should we handle bugfixes?
>
> All in all I think it will be useful to do this - it has definitely caused
> confusion in the past that there are two repos.  I just think we need to be
> careful.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131126/96d8082a/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list