I'm in favor of this.  I've been really happy this last month with the new imports in the reorganized branch.  I'm finding it to be way more intuitive, which is exactly what we want.  I think the key is to stress, if you're looking for your import, you don't have to go any further than the api.py files.

Britton

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

I'd like to set a timeline for merging the current "yt" branch into
being the "stable" branch.  I think this could coincide with a 2.0
release, but I'm not sure that the entire checklist for 2.0 is going
to get done in a reasonable timescale.  (I'm working on the
documentation in my spare time, and I think that we are likely to have
full support for FLASH, mostly support small RAMSES datasets, and
limited ART support.  A few wishlist items won't make it.)

Has anyone here not upgraded to the reorganized branch?  I feel like
the people who are reading this are pretty likely to be able to work
out bugs/import errors/missing functionality.

Anyway, barring any objections here, in a few weeks I'll send out an
email to yt-users notifying everyone that scripts will have to change
slightly (with a key for swapping them) with any new upgrades to the
codebase and then by the middle/end of December perform the merge,
with an affiliated release of 2.0.

Thoughts?

-Matt
_______________________________________________
Yt-dev mailing list
Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org