[yt-dev] Proposed: release dates for 2.6, 2.6.x, and 3.0

[Matthew Turk]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  * 2.6 be released on November 1, 2013, which gives several days after
>> the "doc sprint."  I will be working on docs leading up to the doc
>> sprint.  The code is in a good state at this point and we can release
>> it at any time, but the documentation is the primary blocker for 2.6.
>>  * I have added three maintenance releases, every three months, for
>> 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3 and 2.6.4.  This is because will *not* be
>> deprecating the 2.x series.
>
>
> How will this work inside the repo?  Will be using branches and a single
> repository?  Will we accept pull requests into the 2.X codebase or only
> accept PRs for 3.X and then backport as appropriate?

We have a few options.  My inclination is that we should not yet make
the branch "yt" refer to the 3.0 codebase, simply because then people
might "yt update" themselves into it.  I am inclined to say we
continue with yt-3.0 as a branch for development until we have ensured
full coverage and a compatibility layer, which may not be until 3.1 or
even later.  This is somewhat similar to what Python did, and I want
to ensure we retain a strong community foundation.

>
>>
>>  * 3.0 has been added with a tentative release on January 1, 2014.  I
>> have assessed the reliability of the code, and it seems to me that
>> *even as it is*, it is considerably better than the 2.x line of
>> development.  The remaining struggles are all in documentation.  A
>> handful of operations are still outstanding -- clump finding and
>> boolean objects most notably -- but the vast, vast majority are
>> implemented.
>>
>
> I also think it's important to address these two issues:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/552/cut_region-doesnt-work-in-30
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/499/missing-hierarchy-functions

Fair points.  I've assigned both to me and made them blockers.

>
>>
>> I'd like to resolve this by proposing we wind down development on 2.X
>> as best we can, and instead attempt to focus resources on 3.0.  Until
>> we do that, the biggest fish of the refactor/redesign simply can't
>> land, which means we're in a self-perpetuating cycle of never getting
>> to the point of being "ready."
>
>
> Agreed!  I'm excited for everything to move over the 3.0 - it will be a
> relief
> to make changes without having to worry about future merge conflicts.
>
>>
>>
>> -Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>