[yt-dev] Merging the open unitrefactor PR

[Cameron Hummels]

I'm +1 on merging into the 3.0 dev branch, but only after documentation
exists for the features that are being introduced by this PR.  I know this
isn't what people want to hear, but I think it will be much easier to
support if people other than the main authors know how it works and how to
use it.


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:52 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 on merging into the 3.0 dev branch.
>
> -1 on separate branch.
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am a +1 on this for all of the reasons you've stated.  I would be much
> more likely to contribute bugfixes/enhancements/docs as well as test/report
> issues if it was on the main branch, even if it means the 3.0 branch is
> less "stable" than it is currently.  I'd suggest we tag the last
> non-unitrefactor commit so that 3.0 users can have a easy way to revert to
> non-unitful yt if they way, but besides that I think we should go for it.
>
> I'm -1 on a separate stable/dev branch for 3.0.
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Over the past month or so development has been proceeding apace on the
>> unit refactor in Matt's fork of yt. We did this because Matt initially
>> opened the unitrefactor PR and at that time it was not ready for
>> merging.
>>
>> However, thanks to everyone's hard work, unitrefactor is getting more
>> and more stable and I think it's time to think about merging it into
>> the main repo, even if there are open issues or some remaining bits of
>> functionality that haven't been updated yet.
>>
>> With tons of development going on in Matt's fork, I think we're
>> possibly leaving out people who aren't watching his repo.
>> Additionally, since Matt is the only one who can merge pull requests
>> into his repo, we need to use a lot more of his attention to keep work
>> moving forward.
>>
>> It's true that there is some functionality that still needs to be
>> ported and bugs that need to be fixed. Matt's trello board summarizes
>> most of the issues (BTW, I see a couple missing issues, would you be
>> open to adding more users to it?):
>>
>> https://trello.com/b/yv7o0dTp/unit-refactor
>>
>> One option would be to open a new named branch in the main repo, while
>> still keeping the current 3.0 tip in a 'stable' state. I'm less
>> inclined to go this route because I think unitrefactor is such a big
>> improvement over the current codebase, since many new features have
>> snuck in besides just adding units.
>>
>> Another concern is that there aren't any docs yet.  That's definitely
>> true, but there aren't any docs for the current 3.0 tip either.  In
>> fact, now that there are a set of docs bundled in the repo in the
>> unitrefactor bookmark, merging should improve the documentation effort
>> for 3.0 going forward by making it more straightforward to enforce a
>> rule that things need to be documented before they get merged.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> -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/20140206/c67319b1/attachment.htm>