[yt-dev] Proposal: merge 'experimental' bookmark into the 'development' bookmark

John ZuHone jzuhone at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 12:42:22 PDT 2014


+1

On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This came up during the google hangout this morning and I think it's a good idea.
> 
> Right now there are four heads and three named branches in the yt_analysis/yt mercurial repository:
> 
> - "stable"
>   This corresponds to the 2.6.2 stable release.
> 
> - "yt"
>   This corresponds to the 2.7dev branch
> 
> - "development"
>   This is on the yt-3.0 named branch, but before the unitrefactor and field refactor were merged in.
> 
> - "experimental"
>   This is also on the yt-3.0 named branch, and incldues unitrefactor, field refactor, and many other changes added since the development workshop at UCSC.
> 
> I see a good reason to retain the "yt" development branch - there have several pull requests into it and many of our users are still using it for day-to-day work.
> 
> I don't see a good reason to keep the distinction between "development" and "experimental".  There have been no pull requests into the "development" bookmark.  There are also known bugs with respect to particle field detection on the "development" bookmark.
> 
> We wanted to keep the "development" bookmark as a way to easily update to a yt-3.0 release from before the time when unitrefactor and the field refactor were merged in.
> 
> I think that keeping a seperate head in the repository for this purpose is unnecessary - we could just have a named tag.  For example, we could call it yt-3.0a5 and point it at the current development bookmark changeset (0d705d2ae8eb).
> 
> Benefits to doing this:
> 
> We would only have three heads in the main repo, each on a different named branch.  This will make it easier to work with bitbucket, which has a UI optimized for named branches rather than bookmarks.
> 
> We will onboard more users to the new codebase, which is the way forward and represents the code that will actually be released for the final 3.0 release.
> 
> Possible issues:
> 
> The "bleeding edge" install script will build a version of yt including all the new features.  Since documentation is still not up to snuff, there might be confusion due to innacurate or incomplete documentation.
> 
> I'd love to hear feedback about this - particularly if there are any strong objections.
> 
> -Nathan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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