[yt-dev] RFC: Staggered deprecation through 3.1 and 3.2

[Nathan Goldbaum]

Sorry - not sure which issue you're talking about - this one maybe?

https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/827/enzo-particle-fields-work-differently-than




On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Related to that, do you have a reproducible script for the particle
> issue you reported?  If so, could you add that to either an issue or a
> trello card so I can work on it?
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in
> the
> > release announcement.  We may also want to note that there are some
> issues
> > with volume rendering of oct and particle data at the moment (I believe
> > that's the case - let me know if I'm wrong there).
> >
> > I think that leaves analysis modules and documentation as the main
> blockers
> > for a 3.0 release.
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on Matt's proposal. -1 on a beta.
> >>
> >> My worry about a beta release is that it will slow adoption, whether
> >> rightly or wrongly. I think we agree that we're ready to encourage
> adoption
> >> of 3.0.
> >>
> >> John ZuHone
> >> Laboratory for High-Energy Astrophysics
> >> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
> >> 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Mail Code 662
> >> Greenbelt, MD 20771
> >> (w) 301-286-2531
> >> (m) 781-708-5004
> >> john.zuhone at nasa.gov
> >> jzuhone at gmail.com
> >>
> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think Britton covered the halos, but the VR works as-is.  As far as
> >> > 3.0beta, I'm a bit nervous about that as we want to avoid the
> >> > situation where we are in beta for 1+ years... I am worried about the
> >> > perception of a "beta" tag.  Is that overblown?  Would calling it
> >> > "yt-3.0-2014" work?
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Nathan Goldbaum
> >> >> <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Do the old VR and halo interfaces work?  Not much effort has gone
> into
> >> >> porting them, I think.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm +1 on this, particularly since I'm at fault for not pushing on
> the
> >> >>> VR
> >> >>> as much as I'd like to.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Turk <
> matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi all,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> One thing we really tried to do with 3.0 was break all the APIs we
> >> >>>> thought we'd need to before release.  This included things like
> >> >>>> ds/pf,
> >> >>>> index/hierarchy, the way data selections were made, etc.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It's starting to become clear that we are approaching maturity at
> >> >>>> different rates in these initiatives.  I am wondering if perhaps we
> >> >>>> should de-couple the release from all of the API breakages, and
> >> >>>> instead note which interfaces we know are going to change in the
> >> >>>> future.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Pragmatically, what this would mean is:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> * Release a 3.0 with the old VR and halo finding interfaces
> >> >>>> * Release a 3.1 with either the new VR or the new halo finding (or
> >> >>>> both)
> >> >>>> * Do the same for 3.2
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This doesn't fit with the usual "major numbers are where APIs
> break"
> >> >>>> philosophy that comes from semantic versioning, but I think from
> the
> >> >>>> perspective of pragmatism, if we identify those sections of the
> code
> >> >>>> that are *going* to change, and we pitch 3.0 as the first part of a
> >> >>>> staged release of totally rewritten infrastructure, we can likely
> >> >>>> come
> >> >>>> out okay.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to put this out there for discussion.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Matt
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140624/c3db2720/attachment.htm>