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

John ZuHone jzuhone at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 09:53:05 PDT 2014


+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



More information about the yt-dev mailing list