On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

One item that I feel I ought to bring up is that there are two major, disruptive changes that haven't landed yet:

* Field renaming / units
* unifying objects and rebranding things

In principle I think we can mostly provide fully-featured compatibility layers for these, but I am still somewhat anxious about them. The first one is basically ready to go *except* for volume rendering (waiting on a ytep and some reimplementation) and the second is in need of some work still, which I have not yet put in.

What if we unify, and then put out a final alpha release of 3 before these land? For big disruptive changes it is probably in our best interests to ease the process of switching branches - thus unifying the repos.

On Nov 26, 2013 12:10 PM, "Stuart Mumford" <stuart@mumford.me.uk> wrote:

+1

On 26 Nov 2013 15:33, "Britton Smith" <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

John, if you have a fork of yt-3.0 and a fork of yt, you should be able to do the following:
hg push yt-3.0-fork yt-fork
Then, you should be able to issue PR from your yt-fork.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:28 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we detail how to get changes in our yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repos into the yt-3.0 branch of yt_analysis/yt? I'm guessing it's simple but probably not as simple as hitting the PR button on Bitbucket.

On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman@gmail.com> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:38 AM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:

+1. Let's do this.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd be +1 on this. Keep the yt-3.0 branch separate, make
yt_analysis/yt-3.0 read-only, and move yt-3.0 the branch itself into
the main yt_analysis/yt repository.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM, John Wise <jwise@physics.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As someone that just moved to the yt-3.0 repo (and not having much time for
> dev anymore...), I think this is a good idea. Having it separate was a
> barrier for me because 2.x worked for most of my analysis, and I just kept
> on using 2.x because of convenience. However, if the latest changes were in
> the main repo, then users could easily switch to the 3.0 branch and test
> things out.
>
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
>
> On 11/26/2013 07:20 AM, Britton Smith 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?
>>
>> Britton
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing