On 11/26/2013 01:21 PM, Britton Smith wrote:
Also, to be clear, I think we should keep yt-3.0 development in the yt-3.0 branch of yt for the time being.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
Now that we have pushed out the last (or nearly the last) major release of yt-2.x, many are now joining the effort to work on yt-3.0. As you may have noticed, there is a yt-3.0 branch in the main yt repo hosted at https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt. However, most of the actual development has been happening in a separate yt-3.0 repo ( https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt-3.0).
I think it may now be time to consider moving yt-3.0 development over to the main repository. I think this will lower the barrier of entry for a number of people and should not be a big problem to users of 2.x now that that version has mostly stabilized.
As for logistics, a number of people have done work in forks of the yt-3.0, so we should not remove it entirely. Instead, I propose making it read-only, and having people push their changes to a fork of the main yt repo and working off of that from now on. The magic of mercurial should make this relatively painless.
Thoughts? +/-1?
+1 Having one repo would greatly simplify some dirty hacks I've made in jenkins. Same goes for issues/PRs linking @ bitbucket Cheers, Kacper