[yt-dev] 3.0 release delay

Tue Jul 29 10:57:11 PDT 2014

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> To respond to Britton's question, the things that I think are blockers on
> release are:
>
> --Update the documentation field list;  I started working on this three
> weeks ago and had something working roughly (dynamically generating the
> field list docs from the source code), but I encountered problems getting
> it to work for all of the frontend fields.  Matt took over, but I do not
> know its current state.
>
> --Add a description of how particle unions work, and demonstrate how to
> use them.  This should probably go in the "filtering data" page.  I tried
> this, but I do not know how to make a particle union nor can I figure it
> out from source.
>
> --Include more on the "fields" doc page on why particle fields are
> different than mesh fields, and in particular what happens when a particle
> field is added and the "deposit" fields that are generated from it.  And
> what these deposit fields mean (what is the diff between "cic" and
> "density", "count", etc.)
>
> --Update the "code support" page to accurately reflect what codes are
> supported, and what level of support is offered for each one.  Does anyone
> know the level of code support for each of the codes?
>
> --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  The parts that are out of date are not always easy to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?

>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140729/3b287463/attachment.html>