[yt-dev] Merging the open unitrefactor PR

Thu Feb 6 11:54:40 PST 2014

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking about this some more...
>
> The unit and field refactoring are very big changes that effect nearly every part of the codebase. Since a lot of our documentation relies on notebooks, it would seem to me that writing these would be a lot easier if we integrated the major parts of this release together first. That way issues that crop up and unexpected bugs can be addressed immediately, as opposed to writing docs and then finding out later that they need to be changed after the big merge is made.
>

We've been trying to merge with mainline dev as much as possible.  It
doesn't happen immediately because it adds cognitive overhead to
dealing with development, so it ends up happening as a PR every couple
of weeks.

Merging into the main repo will help ease the burden of periodic
merging and fixing bugs exposed by the merge.

I think Matt was actually trying to get a docs build to run last
night.  I'm not sure how much work it would be to get the docs into a
state where they can be built in yt-3.0, even if the narrative docs
have not been updated to be consistent with the codebase yet.

> I suppose the response to that is that we ought to merge from yt-dev into the units fork, but this seems to the six of one vs half-dozen of the other.
>
> John ZuHone
> Laboratory for High-Energy Astrophysics
> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
> 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Mail Code 662
> Greenbelt, MD 20771
> (w) 301-286-2531
> (m) 781-708-5004
> john.zuhone at nasa.gov
> jzuhone at gmail.com
>
>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can prepare docs for units this weekend.
>>
>> Documentation for SPH smoothing and the new field system will depend
>> on Matt, who in a previous e-mail said he wouldn't have time to work
>> seriously on docs until March.  I don't think "wait until March" makes
>> sense here...
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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