[yt-dev] Merging the open unitrefactor PR

[John ZuHone]

+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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140206/57844940/attachment.html>