Sorry - not sure which issue you're talking about - this one maybe? https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/issue/827/enzo-particle-fields-work-dif... 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?
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in
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
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
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: the the 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