Hey Matt,

The OpenGL VR looks like really cool functionality, and I think potentially it should be merged into dev soon, but I am having some hesitation about including it in the imminent stable release.  It was always my opinion that the Stable branch was for code/features that have been in the codebase for a while, have a stable API, and aren't actively being modified or seen as experimental.  As far as I can tell, the OpenGL VR has been tested by a few developers and will have been in the dev branch for only a very short time (a week or two) before the release of stable version 3.3.  Should we really be pushing this feature to stable with the caveat that it is still experimental?  Doesn't this go against the very idea of the Stable branch?  Or should we leave it in dev until its experimental phase has passed?

I understand that it would be nice to have software VR and hardware VR both go out at the same time to stable, but it just seems like the hardware stuff is getting pushed out the door when very few people have used it and it's still seen as an experimental feature.

Thoughts?

Cameron

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,

As of today, all of the tests pass, and I believe all the comments
have been addressed.  At the time of the triage one of the style tests
wasn't passing, but I would propose that it now be merged since that
issue has since been remedied.

Unless there are extremely strong objections (in addition to the
objections raised here and in the PR) I think it should be merged.
This is exciting!  I can't wait to see this in the wild.

Thanks,

Matt

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Myers <atmyers2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> OK, sounds good.  I'll work on some docs as soon as possible, and
>>> >> hopefully if they get in we can be set up to accept it  before any 3.3
>>> >> release.  Andrew, you're 3.3 manager, right?  What's the 3.3
>>> >> timescale?
>>> >
>>> > There currently isn't a set time table, but I'd say it can be ready
>>> > "soon."
>>> > We knocked out a big chunk of the remaining VR issues last week. The
>>> > only
>>> > things that remain are 1) documenting and sanity checking the log /
>>> > linear
>>> > issue for Transfer functions, and 2) addressing the issues with the
>>> > default
>>> > alpha settings. I believe that all the other things we wanted to get
>>> > done by
>>> > 3.3 are in there.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Sounds good.  I will get the docs done right away, by end of week; are
>>> there any code changes we should aim for in the OpenGL in addition?
>>>
>>
>> No idea how hard this would be, but maybe something that prints some help
>> text to the screen?
>
> Great idea.  Also, I should have solicited these requests to be added
> to the PR in comments, as they'll be easier to manage there.
>
>>
>> Right now you need to look at the source code to see the keybindings.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
NSF Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Astronomy
California Institute of Technology