[yt-dev] Proposed modification to YTEP-1776: bugfixes to the stable branch, code freezes

Tue Nov 4 02:28:37 PST 2014

Hi Nathan,

+1 on the two-week dev freeze prior to releases.  That is a great idea.

As for the other thing, I'm ok with doing our best to adhere to this policy
whenever we can and allowing for the occasional exception.  I think this
plan is complicated enough that it needs a named position in charge of
making it happen.  This person's duties would be to keep track of states of
the two branches, make sure fixes are applied where they should be, etc.,
etc.  Without that, I think this may turn chaotic before too long.  Perhaps
this person can be the same person who calls the development freeze leading
up to a release, in which case this is just the release manage.  If so, we
need to lay these details out explicitly in the YTEP.

Britton

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:27 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds like this falls into the "not 'rules'... More like 'guidelines'..."
> category.
>
> John ZuHone
> Kavli Center for Astrophysics and Space Research
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 77 Massachusetts Ave., 37-582G
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> (w) 617-253-2354
> (m) 781-708-5004
> jzuhone at space.mit.edu
> jzuhone at gmail.com
> http://www.jzuhone.com
>
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Chris Malone <chris.m.malone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm +1 on the manifesto, but share the concerns about disentangling PRs
> that need to put in the right places - could be challenging, but I'm not
> sure there is a straightforward fix.
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Douglas Harvey Rudd <drudd at uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Nathan,
>>
>>  I’ll echo Cameron’s concerns that it’s not always obvious how to
>> disentangle API changes from pure bugfixes. I’ve just submitted a PR that
>> fixes a bug *by* changing the API. In this case it’s backwards compatible
>> (the API has only grown), but I’m not sure yt has a sufficiently stable API
>> to protect.
>>
>>  If we allow the policy to be broken from time to time, and simply
>> reflect recommended practice, I think it’s a good idea.
>>
>>    Douglas Rudd
>> Scientific Computing Consultant
>> Research Computing Center
>>  drudd at uchicago.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hey Nathan,
>>
>>  I think in general this is a great idea.  The only concern I have is
>> that it may not always be easy to separate bugfixes for the stable branch
>> vs bugfixes which may only work on code in the dev branch (where the API
>> may be different or there may be new functionality).  I'm not saying this
>> is impossible, but it may be challenging to do right.  I suppose if we have
>> less time between releases, this will be minimized, since dev and stable
>> will be more in sync with each other.
>>
>>  An example of this that comes to mind is the ProjectionPlot's 'method'
>> attribute.  In yt 3.0, this attribute was 'style', but I submitted a PR
>> which changed it to 'method' recently.  Since this is an API change, it
>> shouldn't be incorporated into patch releases, but it would only go into yt
>> 3.1, right?  But John Zuhone has a PR right now with lots of bugfixes,
>> including one that enables the 'method' attribute to work with 'sum's in
>> the OffAxisProjection.  Under the proposed infrastructure, how would he
>> submit this bugfix?  Would he submit it as a bugfix to the 'style'
>> attribute in the old stable branch (prior to the acceptance of my PR?),
>> which would later change to the 'method' attribute in the next point
>> release?  Or would he hold off on it until the next point release?  It
>> seems unclear to me, but maybe I'm just being daft.
>>
>>  I do really like the idea of shutting off substantive PRs 2 weeks
>> before release, though, and asking everyone to do their work on the tip.
>> I'm very much in favor of that.
>>
>>  Cameron
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  Before making a PR to the YTEP repository, I wanted to propose a
>>> modification to our development workflow to the mailing list.
>>>
>>>  In particular, I think we need to be more careful about what changes
>>> go to the yt branch and the stable branch.
>>>
>>>  Right now we suggest all new changes, including bug fixes, API
>>> changes, and new features, go to the "yt" branch.  Periodically, we merge
>>> from the "yt" branch into the "stable" branch, tag the merge with a release
>>> number, and upload to pypi.
>>>
>>>  This means that we are restricted in making bugfix releases that
>>> include no breaking changes.  As soon as a new feature gets merged into the
>>> "yt" branch, by all rights the next merge-to-stable and release should be a
>>> minor version change instead of a patch version change (i.e. we should be
>>> releasing yt 3.1 instead of yt 3.0.1 after merging in a new feature or API
>>> change, see http://semver.org/ for more details on this nomenclature).
>>> Generally, people expect patch version bumps to only include bugfixes.
>>>
>>>  I'd like to propose a modification to our development workflow that
>>> should make it easier to make sure bugfixes can be released without
>>> breaking unrelated things, while still allowing us to temporarily break
>>> stuff on the dev branch.
>>>
>>>  I think rather than merging from the "yt" branch into "stable" *every*
>>> time we do a release, we should instead issue patch releases from the
>>> current state of the stable branch.  Instead of merging from "yt" into
>>> "stable" with every release, we should only do so before a minor or major
>>> version release, not patch releases.
>>>
>>>  This means that bugfixes will need to go to the "stable" branch
>>> instead of the "yt" branch.  It also means that the "stable" branch will
>>> need to be merged into the "yt" branch with some regularity to make sure
>>> bugfixes make their way to the dev version of the code.  It will also take
>>> some degree of manual care to ensure that the "@" bookmark always points at
>>> the tip of the stable branch so fresh clones get bugfixes.  Additionally,
>>> bugfixes may need to be backported or cherrypicked from the "yt" branch to
>>> the "stable" branch if a bugfix comes in as part of some bigger change or
>>> if a contributor isn't aware that bugfixes should go to the stable branch.
>>>
>>>  This workflow sort of matches what's done in the mercurial community.
>>>
>>>  I think it would be a good idea to follow the mercurial community in
>>> another way, we should institute a "code freeze" for the two weeks prior to
>>> a non-bugfix release. This means that all developers switch to the tip of
>>> the "yt" branch, and only PRs that fix bugs, documentation issues, or
>>> improve error messages can be merged. Just before release, the "yt" branch
>>> is merged into "stable".
>>>
>>>  See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/TimeBasedReleasePlan for more
>>> details.
>>>
>>>  Instituting such a testing period should help us understand the scope
>>> of a release a few weeks out, keep pre-release documentation updates
>>> bounded, and hopefully help suss out bugs since most developers will be
>>> testing a sync'd up-to-date version of the code that people will actually
>>> be using.
>>>
>>>  What do you all think about these proposals?  If there's broad
>>> agreement that this is a good idea, I'll put this proposal together as a
>>> patch for YTEP-1776.  If not I'll hold off for a while until we can come to
>>> a consensus.
>>>
>>>  Best,
>>>
>>>  Nathan
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141104/eb5c085b/attachment.htm>