On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Douglas Harvey Rudd firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Matthew Turk" email@example.com wrote:
[+-] on pushing yt-3.0 branch into yt_analysis/yt?
+0, we're not working in either right now, so it makes little difference.
Okay, I think I'll push it into yt_analysis/yt for the release. Responses have been positive or neutral so far. [insert 'chaotic neutral' joke]
There used to be a bug in bit bucket when a the parent fork of a fork was deleted, not sure if that's still a concern.
Yes, I think it's still around. We'll keep the yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repo for now. We can re-evaluate if need be at some point in the future.
There are still a few outstanding things before the alpha. Doug, would you like me to pull in the artio changes?
The particles and grid fields are working, except for particle type support. I'd say if our front end passes all unit tests and the units are working then we should go into 3.0a1, but otherwise not.
What I pulled in just now passes everything! I think as long as we keep in mind this is really a "heartbeat" for the project, it's fine to put something out that works, but doesn't have everything in yet.
I'll clean up a few things and open a pull request later today and we can discuss it there.
Great, thanks -- no rush, I am about to head to some talks and then address some other issues.
I've put a draft of the release email here:
I did select a few names to put in, even though there were more people who contributed in the yt 3.0 branch, simply because for this release I wanted to emphasize the Octree support. Please feel free to add anyone I missed.
Doug _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org