On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:42 AM, John ZuHone <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
My vote is for 2.5 to be the last 2.x release. I also agree with Cameron's suggestion that we wait until after Enzo 2.2.
Laboratory for High-Energy Astrophysics
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
8800 Greenbelt Rd., Code 662
Greenbelt, MD 20771
On Nov 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Matthew Turk <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
> Thanks for starting this discussion!
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> A lot of really great work has already or is just about to be been merged
>> into yt since we did our last release in August. Just a few examples:
>> Unit Tests and improved answer tests with continuous integration
>> Numerous PlotWindow fixes and improvements
>> Improved Athena support
>> spherical and cylindrical coordinates and vector coordinate transformations
>> Particle support for FLASH data
>> Limited support for generating GDF initial conditions
>> Improved support for 2D FLASH data.
>> PlotWindow TimeSeries interface
>> Numerous bug fixes
> Wow, that *is* a lot. One thing I am struggling with is that many of
> these things aren't done -- but "done" is such a fickle concept that
> maybe it's okay that we keep going.
>> The obvious holdup to a release is the number of open issues marked for 2.5.
>> I think the idea was to make the 2.5 release the last in the 2.X series
>> before moving all development over to yt 3.0. Is that still the plan? Is
>> it possible to get a 2.5 release out while delaying the end of 2.X
>> development to a 2.6 release?
> Well, my preference is that 2.5 be the end of the line, but I think if
> we release 2.5 now, we can probably also pull off a 2.6.
> I'm working this morning on other projects, but this afternoon I'm
> going to be posting documentation of where the 3.0 development is, and
> what remains to be done before development can be moved over. Last
> week, Nathan, Stephen and I found a couple issues that required a bit
> more thought, and I've been largely sidelined since then. The big
> 1) Ensuring that particle support is totally shored up
> 2) Covering grids, which need to be implemented (although I think I
> now have an idea the best way to do so)
> I'm going to write this afternoon with planning documents, following
> on the discussion we had a few weeks ago.
>> The reason I bring all this up is mostly for the plot window fixes - we've
>> improved it a lot since August and I think it's much more usable now.
>> Perhaps a new release and a blog post about the new plotting interface will
>> encourage more people to switch over.
> This is a great idea. I would really like to encourage people to
> blog, by the way -- we get a surprising amount of traffic, and I think
> it's a good way to get the word out about things like the plot window.
> And since you can use the notebook to do it, that just makes it
>> I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. I know many of you are busy
>> with the enzo 2.2 release and probably don't want to make another big push
>> so soon.
> I think the release push for Enzo is taking a lot more energy than a
> similarly timed release push for yt, but I understand where Cameron is
> coming from in suggesting we hold off. So maybe what we *could* do is
> file tickets for the items (docs in particular) that need to be
> changed and then once Enzo is out the door address the rest.
>> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev mailing list