My understanding was that we'd decided it was okay to include it in the development branch, since that's how things get experimented with. I don't think this is an invasive change, and I think that the longer it lives in a pull request that's in the development branch the longer it won't get used and done. We have put out a few major releases in the last few years -- 3.0, in early August 2014, 3.1 in January 2015, and 3.2 in September of 2015. In between, the backporting has gone really well, but I don't really want to wait eight months to get this into a "release". Having an experimental API like this in a "released" version of yt means people will hear about it, use it, contribute to it, and also that they'll see it's experimental. That's pretty clearly demarcated, and having a simple high-level wrapper to it means lots of changes can happen below the surface without breaking anything. I'm personally keen to have either comments that can be dealt with, or to have this merged and iterated on. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
I just want to say that the concerns I raised above haw all been addressed. I'm personally OK with including experimental features as long as they're clearly marked as such.
I'm also not sure where Cameron is getting that the release will happen in a week or two. There hasn't been any discussion about when 3.3 will go out, and there are still several open issues.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
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 http://chummels.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org