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

[Britton Smith]

I'm going to be a little bit pedantic and say that I am in favor of merging
in the current contents of experimental into development because I think
they have now been sufficiently vetted and are ready to be included.
 However, I am also in favor of retaining the model of having separate
experimental and development bookmarks, even if right now the experimental
bookmark will disappear for a while.  The whole point of doing this in the
first place was that we wanted to maintain usability for the people that
were doing actual work with development while also having a staging area
for everyone to easily collaborate on the unitrefactor and other new and
experimental projects.  To me, this has been a huge success and I would
like to see us continue to use this model as we continue to work on large,
disruptive changes.  As long as we're not talking about never using an
experimental bookmark again, I am in favor of this.


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm also in favor of this.  I think we should do this as soon as is
> reasonable, perhaps early next week.  Tuesday?
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2014 7:15 PM, "Cameron Hummels" <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140406/45c8071d/attachment.html>