I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.

https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0.  For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work. 

I don't see this on trello.  Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?

 

 That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind.  I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.

I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it.  I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.

Cameron 

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient.  Let me know if you need something more detailed.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:

That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry - not sure which issue you're talking about - this one maybe?
>
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/827/enzo-particle-fields-work-differently-than
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Related to that, do you have a reproducible script for the particle
>> issue you reported?  If so, could you add that to either an issue or a
>> trello card so I can work on it?
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in
>> > the
>> > release announcement.  We may also want to note that there are some
>> > issues
>> > with volume rendering of oct and particle data at the moment (I believe
>> > that's the case - let me know if I'm wrong there).
>> >
>> > I think that leaves analysis modules and documentation as the main
>> > blockers
>> > for a 3.0 release.
>> >
>> > -Nathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 on Matt's proposal. -1 on a beta.
>> >>
>> >> My worry about a beta release is that it will slow adoption, whether
>> >> rightly or wrongly. I think we agree that we're ready to encourage
>> >> adoption
>> >> of 3.0.
>> >>
>> >> John ZuHone
>> >> Laboratory for High-Energy Astrophysics
>> >> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
>> >> 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Mail Code 662
>> >> Greenbelt, MD 20771
>> >> (w) 301-286-2531
>> >> (m) 781-708-5004
>> >> john.zuhone@nasa.gov
>> >> jzuhone@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think Britton covered the halos, but the VR works as-is.  As far as
>> >> > 3.0beta, I'm a bit nervous about that as we want to avoid the
>> >> > situation where we are in beta for 1+ years... I am worried about the
>> >> > perception of a "beta" tag.  Is that overblown?  Would calling it
>> >> > "yt-3.0-2014" work?
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Nathan Goldbaum
>> >> >> <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Do the old VR and halo interfaces work?  Not much effort has gone
>> >> >> into
>> >> >> porting them, I think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Sam Skillman <samskillman@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm +1 on this, particularly since I'm at fault for not pushing on
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> VR
>> >> >>> as much as I'd like to.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Turk
>> >> >>> <matthewturk@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hi all,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> One thing we really tried to do with 3.0 was break all the APIs we
>> >> >>>> thought we'd need to before release.  This included things like
>> >> >>>> ds/pf,
>> >> >>>> index/hierarchy, the way data selections were made, etc.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> It's starting to become clear that we are approaching maturity at
>> >> >>>> different rates in these initiatives.  I am wondering if perhaps
>> >> >>>> we
>> >> >>>> should de-couple the release from all of the API breakages, and
>> >> >>>> instead note which interfaces we know are going to change in the
>> >> >>>> future.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Pragmatically, what this would mean is:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> * Release a 3.0 with the old VR and halo finding interfaces
>> >> >>>> * Release a 3.1 with either the new VR or the new halo finding (or
>> >> >>>> both)
>> >> >>>> * Do the same for 3.2
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> This doesn't fit with the usual "major numbers are where APIs
>> >> >>>> break"
>> >> >>>> philosophy that comes from semantic versioning, but I think from
>> >> >>>> the
>> >> >>>> perspective of pragmatism, if we identify those sections of the
>> >> >>>> code
>> >> >>>> that are *going* to change, and we pitch 3.0 as the first part of
>> >> >>>> a
>> >> >>>> staged release of totally rewritten infrastructure, we can likely
>> >> >>>> come
>> >> >>>> out okay.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I'd like to put this out there for discussion.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -Matt
>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> >> >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> >> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > yt-dev mailing list
>> >> > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > yt-dev mailing list
>> > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

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

--
Cameron Hummels

Postdoctoral Researcher

Steward Observatory

University of Arizona

http://chummels.org

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

--
Cameron Hummels

Postdoctoral Researcher

Steward Observatory

University of Arizona

http://chummels.org

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