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

Cameron Hummels chummels at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 19:14:20 PDT 2014


+1


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:33 PM, B.W. Keller <kellerbw at mcmaster.ca> wrote:

> I also agree.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:42 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Cameron Hummels
Postdoctoral Researcher
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
http://chummels.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140404/fb2e3457/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list