[yt-dev] Merging the open unitrefactor PR

Brian Crosby crosby.bd at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 11:45:00 PST 2014


As someone who wasn’t involved in the development of unitrefactor, but has recently started using it, I’m +1 on this.  If nothing else, this could help put an end to the frustrating situation where something is broken in 3.0, but fixed in unitrefactor, or vice versa.  That said, I’m strongly in favor of new features being documented as soon as possible.  Even notebooks of the sort that Matt and Nathan have made to illustrate new features (which are amazingly useful) would go a long ways towards easing the transition.

-Brian

On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:36 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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...
> 
> I think that this is the main issue here. I would argue that proper documentation of these features will probably move faster if we don't have all of these disparate branches/forks laying around (there's Matt's fork of yt, I forked Matt's fork, Nathan forked Matt's fork, then Matt has forked his fork, etc...)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/5a218406/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list