[yt-dev] 3.0 release delay

Tue Jul 29 11:06:35 PDT 2014

>
>
>>
>> --Here is the most time-consuming step, and one that i've been doing for
>> a couple of weeks (which is how I've identified many of the previous tasks
>> for updating the docs:
>> Proofread the docs looking for things that are inaccurate or that have
>> not been touched since 2.x.  I'm not so concerned with typos or that sort
>> of thing--mostly just that there is wrong information in the docs.  I found
>> a bunch of old stuff that hasn't been changed as late as last night reading
>> through the docs.  The parts that are out of date are not always easy to
>> correct (it's not just changing pf->ds, or changing pf.h to ds), it's
>> usually just inaccurate information that needs to be updated, and sometimes
>> it is on specific topics on which only a handful of people are up-to-date
>> for 3.0.  This can mean actually trying to run code snippets that are in
>> the docs (just as a new user would if they were to encounter that section)
>> and see if it actually does what it is supposed to do, or if it breaks then
>> fix it.  Not always trivial.
>>
>
> What sections are you talking about here, specifically?
>
>

Well, that's the rub.  We don't know which sections need to be revised
until we proofread the whole thing.  Last night I found errors in the
"surfaces" sections and a few parts of the developer docs.  Matt found some
problems in the "creating derived fields" which I moved to a different
location in my current PR.  I think there are potentially problems
throughout the docs, but I imagine they are clustered around the sections
we don't regularly read: (the analyze section, the examining section, the
developer docs section, the references section).  I like to think I've
correct some of these problems in my recent PR (updating in a few minutes),
but I think there are still a lot of sections that need to be checked.

Cameron

>
>> So you can see why I'm hesitant to have things go out tomorrow.  I don't
>> see these as trivial tasks, or making things "perfect", but things that new
>> users of 3.0 *will* ask about.  Heck, I'm now a seasoned user of 3.0 and I
>> don't know the answers to these (and want to know), as an example.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ...and I think they're mostly or exclusively on me. I have carved out
>>> time today to finish my sections up.
>>>  On Jul 29, 2014 11:22 AM, "Nathan Goldbaum" <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, the issues marked in red on the trello board were
>>>> considered blockers a couple weeks ago.  I don't think any of the remaining
>>>> blockers require code changes.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I can be asked to predict what bugs will shake out, but
>>>>> I will concede waiting for waiting's sake since we're trying to stick to a
>>>>> timeline.  However, I think we need to sort through the remaining trello
>>>>> items, blocking issues, and PRs that are supposed to make it in by 3.0 all
>>>>> be on the same page with what absolutely must get done before this release.
>>>>>  At the same time, let's not be perfectionists, here.  There will be
>>>>> further releases and things will continue to be fixed up over time.
>>>>>  Cameron, can you point to specific items that you think are blockers that
>>>>> won't get done on time?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm -1 on further delays. Looking at the blockers and the ones
>>>>>> assigned to me, I will have them done by Wednesday. Which ones are the ones
>>>>>> that will be problematic or that need to shake out? We've been in a light
>>>>>> code freeze for over a week at this point, right?
>>>>>>  On Jul 29, 2014 3:22 AM, "Britton Smith" <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We shouldn't release until blocking issues have been cleared, and
>>>>>>> probably a day or two after that to let things settle and bugs shake out.
>>>>>>>  One final hangout/sprint to establish what exactly needs to get done
>>>>>>> before the release is probably a good idea.  Would anyone be up for doing
>>>>>>> that sometime this week?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Britton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:50 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't be able to help out with documentation for a few days
>>>>>>>> (probably until next week), as I am away at a meeting and have some other
>>>>>>>> things to attend to in addition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we push it to next week, I will be able to assist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First I want to thank everyone for their hard work at getting 3.0
>>>>>>>> where it is in terms of functionality, bug fixes, and documentation.
>>>>>>>>  However, I'm concerned that there are still several things that need doing
>>>>>>>> in the documentation prior to release of 3.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://trello.com/b/Y5XV4Hod/yt-3-0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Beyond that, I think once those things are done, we need some
>>>>>>>> proofreading of the docs, because I'm not convinced there aren't still
>>>>>>>> sections that are out of date and reflecting 2.x versions of the code.
>>>>>>>>  Proofreading (and subsequent correction) may take a while.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it behooves us to push back the release a few more days
>>>>>>>> until we make sure this is where we want it to be.  This is a major release
>>>>>>>> with major API breakages, and I want to make sure the documentation
>>>>>>>> actually reflects the codebase, so new users and new converts to 3.0 don't
>>>>>>>> get confused.  I certainly was confused when i first moved over because
>>>>>>>> there are a lot of significant changes that it's easy to forget after using
>>>>>>>> it for a while and being as tied into the community as we all are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cameron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>
>

-- 
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/20140729/0afff6ee/attachment.htm>