[yt-dev] Merging the unit refactor

Sam Skillman samskillman at gmail.com
Fri Feb 7 14:33:44 PST 2014 

for proposal in this_thread:
    proposal += 1



On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>wrote:

> I like Cameron's idea a ton.  We do have to draw a line somewhere on these
> docs or else they will never get done.  I really like the idea of allowing
> changes into the development (here yt-3.0) branch with minimal/some docs,
> but an absolute hard deadline when it comes to changes getting into stable
> releases.  I also think we need to establish some sort of guideline for
> minimally acceptable documentation otherwise we risk losing the bridge to
> the rest of the developers.
>
> Britton
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I'm +1 on this--no strings attached.  I totally agree with what Matt has
>> said above, as I do see the need to get unit refactor into the main
>> development line, since much of the current development has taken place
>> there as of late.
>>
>> I think Matt's suggestions for blockers on the docs are spot-on, and I
>> applaud the efforts that he has already made to get them moving.  I
>> understand not having a full docs refactor immediately, in a desire to get
>> the code available to the userbase.  I'm very happy to review stuff, but
>> I'm afraid I cannot be much help in authorship given that I have little
>> experience with the new refactor.
>>
>> The only small thing that I might suggest is to have some sort of
>> timeline, even if it is a loose one, on when we can complete the narrative
>> docs, the SPH smoothing docs, and bringing the docs fully up to speed with
>> 3.0.  I realize this may take some time, but I think it is important to not
>> get into a deficit on this, as it will likely just grow with time (I say
>> this as an experienced procrastinator).  Maybe before 3.0 is officially
>> released to the community as a stable version?  Maybe shortly after?  I'd
>> be interested in other's thoughts on this and I'm flexible on this.
>>
>> Thanks, Matt.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <
>>> nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> One issue with recommending that people stay on the current yt-3.0
>>> tip
>>> >>> is that there are a number of bugs (the most serious are related to
>>> >>> field detection), that are fixed in unitrefactor.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The API changes in 3.0 we've been planning for a long time (see the
>>> >>> YTEP repo) were always going to be a bit painful and I think we're
>>> >>> finally at the point where that starts to become a concern.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So long as there is a big docs push on a relatively short timescale,
>>> >>> I'd be +1 on the approach Matt suggests.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Matt, where is the documentation you are Britton have started work
>>> on?
>>> >>>  I don't see it in MatthewTurk/yt.
>>> >>
>>> >> MatthewTurk/yt-units at 30docs
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > What about the stumbling blocks document?
>>>
>>> doc/source/yt3differences.rst
>>>
>>> Just added a few more items to it.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:21 AM, John Zuhone <jzuhone at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>> I guess I see both sides of this. Part of me wants to say that we
>>> >>>> should mark a "stable-ish" alpha/beta/wherever we are version of 3.0
>>> >>>> right before the unit refactoring, and encourage people who use 3.0
>>> >>>> already to stop there for now. I suppose the objection to this is
>>> what
>>> >>>> happens when bugs in that version are found, but we also have to
>>> think
>>> >>>> about fixing potentially any bug now in light of the new units
>>> >>>> functionality. I'm not myself going to be doing any development from
>>> >>>> this point that doesn't assume the new field system and units, so I
>>> >>>> don't have to change it later.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> However, I am not particularly religious on what direction we should
>>> >>>> go with this, so count me as a solid 0.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>> Hi everyone,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I've done a lot of thinking and talking with people about the idea
>>> of
>>> >>>>> merging the units stuff into the mainline yt 3.0 branch.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> There are clear advantages to doing this: people who want to use
>>> SPH
>>> >>>>> smoothing would be able to get it from the primary repository, PRs
>>> >>>>> could be done through that repository, and the access to new things
>>> >>>>> would be considerably easier.  More public development and review
>>> >>>>> could happen; while the development already *is* public, it's out
>>> of
>>> >>>>> view in my fork of yt.  This is not productive.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> But the development of yt is not the point of yt.  Using yt to
>>> enable
>>> >>>>> scientific discovery is the point of yt.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> In many ways, the units refactor will enable more scientific
>>> >>>>> discovery.  But it's not ready.  There are people using yt-3.0
>>> >>>>> *already* (prime example: http://nickolas1.com/d3test2/ ) to do
>>> really
>>> >>>>> cool science in ways that they can't with 2.x.  And they're doing
>>> this
>>> >>>>> with a yt that *mostly* works like the 2.x branch, with the same
>>> field
>>> >>>>> names and units and all of that, so the docs *mostly* apply.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The units refactor, if merged in, would pull the rug *completely*
>>> out
>>> >>>>> from under them.  And there's no safety net.  There's a web of
>>> YTEPs
>>> >>>>> and PR comments and notebooks posted to mailing lists, but there's
>>> no
>>> >>>>> place they can go and see, "Hey, this worked before, why isn't it
>>> >>>>> now?"  And that's not okay.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I've long put off writing documentation, and honestly, I could
>>> come up
>>> >>>>> with lots more reasons to put it off.  But I started on Wednesday
>>> >>>>> actually writing things down in earnest, and I think that needs to
>>> be
>>> >>>>> the next big push, which I am committed to doing.  Yeah, it's not
>>> that
>>> >>>>> fun always.  Especially since things *are* still changing.  But
>>> it's
>>> >>>>> not fair -- and it is certainly not in the spirit of *extreme
>>> empathy*
>>> >>>>> -- to just change things.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> But I also want new development to continue.  And so I want a
>>> balance
>>> >>>>> to be struck.  I'd like to enumerate the items that are necessary
>>> for
>>> >>>>> documentation so that we can merge it in.  I think these are as
>>> >>>>> follows:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>  * All notebooks should be ported to the 3.0 docs and
>>> unit-refactor style
>>> >>>>>  * API documentation has to be able to be compiled
>>> >>>>>  * At a *bare* minimum, a list of stumbling blocks has to be
>>> included
>>> >>>>> for moving to 3.0.  Britton and I have started on this and made
>>> very
>>> >>>>> good progress.
>>> >>>>>  * We need a bookmark or tag to be included in the repo
>>> *pre*-refactor.
>>> >>>>>  * Cookbook recipes must work (I think they mostly do now)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Things I don't think we need to do before merging:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>  * Completely update 100% of the narrative docs
>>> >>>>>  * Document how to add smoothing fields, as I believe this API is
>>> in flux
>>> >>>>>  * Describe the underlying methods in great, extensive detail for
>>> the
>>> >>>>> new frontends
>>> >>>>>  * A full, complete review of the docs like we did in advance of
>>> 2.6
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> As a thought, why don't we treat documentation the way we treat
>>> code?
>>> >>>>> Within the project, it seems we're comfortable committing and
>>> >>>>> submitting work-in-progress code, but not docs.  In the past,
>>> perhaps
>>> >>>>> this was because the PRs and repos were separate.  They aren't
>>> >>>>> anymore.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> How does this proposal for the merge sound?  Please render an
>>> opinion,
>>> >>>>> as I'd like to have this settled before the early part of next
>>> week.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Matt
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> >>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> John ZuHone
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>> >>>> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> jzuhone at gmail.com
>>> >>>> john.zuhone at nasa.gov
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> 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
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140207/509a4362/attachment.html>

More information about the yt-dev mailing list