<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">+1 on merging into the 3.0 dev branch. <div><br></div><div>-1 on separate branch. </div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Sam Skillman <<a href="mailto:samskillman@gmail.com">samskillman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">I am a +1 on this for all of the reasons you've stated. I would be much more likely to contribute bugfixes/enhancements/docs as well as test/report issues if it was on the main branch, even if it means the 3.0 branch is less "stable" than it is currently. I'd suggest we tag the last non-unitrefactor commit so that 3.0 users can have a easy way to revert to non-unitful yt if they way, but besides that I think we should go for it.<div>
<br></div><div>I'm -1 on a separate stable/dev branch for 3.0.<br><div><br></div><div>Sam</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com" target="_blank">nathan12343@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
<br>
Over the past month or so development has been proceeding apace on the<br>
unit refactor in Matt's fork of yt. We did this because Matt initially<br>
opened the unitrefactor PR and at that time it was not ready for<br>
merging.<br>
<br>
However, thanks to everyone's hard work, unitrefactor is getting more<br>
and more stable and I think it's time to think about merging it into<br>
the main repo, even if there are open issues or some remaining bits of<br>
functionality that haven't been updated yet.<br>
<br>
With tons of development going on in Matt's fork, I think we're<br>
possibly leaving out people who aren't watching his repo.<br>
Additionally, since Matt is the only one who can merge pull requests<br>
into his repo, we need to use a lot more of his attention to keep work<br>
moving forward.<br>
<br>
It's true that there is some functionality that still needs to be<br>
ported and bugs that need to be fixed. Matt's trello board summarizes<br>
most of the issues (BTW, I see a couple missing issues, would you be<br>
open to adding more users to it?):<br>
<br>
<a href="https://trello.com/b/yv7o0dTp/unit-refactor" target="_blank">https://trello.com/b/yv7o0dTp/unit-refactor</a><br>
<br>
One option would be to open a new named branch in the main repo, while<br>
still keeping the current 3.0 tip in a 'stable' state. I'm less<br>
inclined to go this route because I think unitrefactor is such a big<br>
improvement over the current codebase, since many new features have<br>
snuck in besides just adding units.<br>
<br>
Another concern is that there aren't any docs yet. That's definitely<br>
true, but there aren't any docs for the current 3.0 tip either. In<br>
fact, now that there are a set of docs bundled in the repo in the<br>
unitrefactor bookmark, merging should improve the documentation effort<br>
for 3.0 going forward by making it more straightforward to enforce a<br>
rule that things need to be documented before they get merged.<br>
<br>
What do you all think?<br>
<br>
-Nathan<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
yt-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org">yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>yt-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org">yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>