[yt-dev] OpenGL VR

Wed Mar 16 12:51:18 PDT 2016

I'm fully behind this going into the development branch and not languishing
as a PR.  My only concern is that this is getting merged into dev just
prior to a stable release, which means that it will go into the stable
branch when we put out 3.3 imminently.  By all of the talk on the slack
channel and on this mailing list, it seemed like the only major holdups to
3.3 release were software-VR related, and I thought those were almost
complete, but perhaps I'm mistaken in this.

And given that the OpenGL VR is explicitly listed as experimental seems to
be at odds with a fully stable version release.  That's not to say that
people won't use it--I thought a huge number of our users were using dev as
opposed to stable releases, no?  I just thought that dev was where
experimental functionality existed.  But again, I am just raising these
concerns for discussion, and if there is general consensus that this new
functionality should be included in a stable release, then I will not block
it.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> My understanding was that we'd decided it was okay to include it in
> the development branch, since that's how things get experimented with.
> I don't think this is an invasive change, and I think that the longer
> it lives in a pull request that's in the development branch the longer
> it won't get used and done.  We have put out a few major releases in
> the last few years -- 3.0, in early August 2014, 3.1 in January 2015,
> and 3.2 in September of 2015.  In between, the backporting has gone
> really well, but I don't really want to wait eight months to get this
> into a "release".
>
> Having an experimental API like this in a "released" version of yt
> means people will hear about it, use it, contribute to it, and also
> that they'll see it's experimental.  That's pretty clearly demarcated,
> and having a simple high-level wrapper to it means lots of changes can
> happen below the surface without breaking anything.
>
> I'm personally keen to have either comments that can be dealt with, or
> to have this merged and iterated on.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I just want to say that the concerns I raised above haw all been
> addressed.
> > I'm personally OK with including experimental features as long as they're
> > clearly marked as such.
> >
> > I'm also not sure where Cameron is getting that the release will happen
> in a
> > week or two. There hasn't been any discussion about when 3.3 will go out,
> > and there are still several open issues.
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Matt,
> >>
> >> The OpenGL VR looks like really cool functionality, and I think
> >> potentially it should be merged into dev soon, but I am having some
> >> hesitation about including it in the imminent stable release.  It was
> always
> >> my opinion that the Stable branch was for code/features that have been
> in
> >> the codebase for a while, have a stable API, and aren't actively being
> >> modified or seen as experimental.  As far as I can tell, the OpenGL VR
> has
> >> been tested by a few developers and will have been in the dev branch for
> >> only a very short time (a week or two) before the release of stable
> version
> >> 3.3.  Should we really be pushing this feature to stable with the caveat
> >> that it is still experimental?  Doesn't this go against the very idea
> of the
> >> Stable branch?  Or should we leave it in dev until its experimental
> phase
> >> has passed?
> >>
> >> I understand that it would be nice to have software VR and hardware VR
> >> both go out at the same time to stable, but it just seems like the
> hardware
> >> stuff is getting pushed out the door when very few people have used it
> and
> >> it's still seen as an experimental feature.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Cameron
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> As of today, all of the tests pass, and I believe all the comments
> >>> have been addressed.  At the time of the triage one of the style tests
> >>> wasn't passing, but I would propose that it now be merged since that
> >>> issue has since been remedied.
> >>>
> >>> Unless there are extremely strong objections (in addition to the
> >>> objections raised here and in the PR) I think it should be merged.
> >>> This is exciting!  I can't wait to see this in the wild.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Nathan Goldbaum
> >>> > <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Matthew Turk <
> matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Myers <atmyers2 at gmail.com>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> OK, sounds good.  I'll work on some docs as soon as possible,
> and
> >>> >>> >> hopefully if they get in we can be set up to accept it  before
> any
> >>> >>> >> 3.3
> >>> >>> >> release.  Andrew, you're 3.3 manager, right?  What's the 3.3
> >>> >>> >> timescale?
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > There currently isn't a set time table, but I'd say it can be
> ready
> >>> >>> > "soon."
> >>> >>> > We knocked out a big chunk of the remaining VR issues last week.
> >>> >>> > The
> >>> >>> > only
> >>> >>> > things that remain are 1) documenting and sanity checking the
> log /
> >>> >>> > linear
> >>> >>> > issue for Transfer functions, and 2) addressing the issues with
> the
> >>> >>> > default
> >>> >>> > alpha settings. I believe that all the other things we wanted to
> >>> >>> > get
> >>> >>> > done by
> >>> >>> > 3.3 are in there.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Sounds good.  I will get the docs done right away, by end of week;
> >>> >>> are
> >>> >>> there any code changes we should aim for in the OpenGL in addition?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> No idea how hard this would be, but maybe something that prints some
> >>> >> help
> >>> >> text to the screen?
> >>> >
> >>> > Great idea.  Also, I should have solicited these requests to be added
> >>> > to the PR in comments, as they'll be easier to manage there.
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Right now you need to look at the source code to see the
> keybindings.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> > 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
> >> NSF Postdoctoral Fellow
> >> Department of Astronomy
> >> California Institute of Technology
> >> 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
NSF Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Astronomy
California Institute of Technology
http://chummels.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20160316/433e6906/attachment.html>