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

[Matthew Turk]

Hi all,

A corrollary of this is: when should the yt-3.0 branch development be
moved primarily into the main yt_analysis/yt repository.  This is not
the same as making it the main or stable line.

Upsides: easier to switch between mainline and 3.0, easier to do
releases, and easier for people out there to switch and to update.
Downsides: higher turnover in relatively large ways on our main
repository, although outside of the main branch, and there are a
number of extant forks of 3.0 already that would be orphaned.

I'm probably fine with this happening soon, I think.  The YTEP
suggests a release date for 3.0a4 of October 15, but I'd be fine
pushing the yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt anytime.  It's unlikely
that someone who doesn't want 3.0 would blindly update to 3.0 if "tip"
is in 3.0, so I don't think that's a huge concern.

-Matt

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have issued a pull request which needs to be discussed; I'd rather
> that be here as it's a more central location.
>
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-request/26/proposing-release-dates-for-26-26x-and-30/diff
>
> I would like to propose:
>
>  * 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.
>  * 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 have one other reason I want to push for a release: I would like to
> diverge the two lines of development in some substantial ways, and I
> do not think we can do that until we have a clear end-game.  These
> ways are all enumerated in these two YTEPs:
>
> https://ytep.readthedocs.org/en/latest/YTEPs/YTEP-0003.html (by Casey)
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-request/25/ytep-0017-de-astroifying-yt-a-bit-and
> (by me, not yet accepted)
>
> Both of these actually have commits outstanding, but which we have
> been reluctant to merge into mainline 3.0 because they will make
> future merging *into* 3.0 quite difficult.  They also both break
> backwards compat, and before we get *any* more uptake of 3.0 than we
> already have, I'd like to merge them in.
>
> <bold for emphasis!>
> An unavoidable requirement for these two YTEPs to be merged in is that
> a 3.0 documentation build must exist and must be up to date.  This is
> *my* responsibility, and I have begun to undertake it.
> <unbold>
>
> 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."
>
> -Matt