+1 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com>wrote:
John, if you have a fork of yt-3.0 and a fork of yt, you should be able to do the following: hg push yt-3.0-fork yt-fork Then, you should be able to issue PR from your yt-fork.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:28 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we detail how to get changes in our yt_analysis/yt-3.0 repos into the yt-3.0 branch of yt_analysis/yt? I'm guessing it's simple but probably not as simple as hitting the PR button on Bitbucket.
On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:38 AM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
+1. Let's do this.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I'd be +1 on this. Keep the yt-3.0 branch separate, make yt_analysis/yt-3.0 read-only, and move yt-3.0 the branch itself into the main yt_analysis/yt repository.
Hi,
As someone that just moved to the yt-3.0 repo (and not having much time for dev anymore...), I think this is a good idea. Having it separate was a barrier for me because 2.x worked for most of my analysis, and I just kept on using 2.x because of convenience. However, if the latest changes were in the main repo, then users could easily switch to the 3.0 branch and test things out.
+1
Cheers, John
On 11/26/2013 07:20 AM, Britton Smith wrote:
Hi all,
Now that we have pushed out the last (or nearly the last) major
release
of yt-2.x, many are now joining the effort to work on yt-3.0. As you may have noticed, there is a yt-3.0 branch in the main yt repo hosted at https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt. However, most of the actual development has been happening in a separate yt-3.0 repo (https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt-3.0).
I think it may now be time to consider moving yt-3.0 development over to the main repository. I think this will lower the barrier of entry for a number of people and should not be a big problem to users of 2.x now that that version has mostly stabilized.
As for logistics, a number of people have done work in forks of the yt-3.0, so we should not remove it entirely. Instead, I propose making it read-only, and having people push their changes to a fork of the
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM, John Wise <jwise@physics.gatech.edu> wrote: main
yt repo and working off of that from now on. The magic of mercurial should make this relatively painless.
Thoughts? +/-1?
Britton
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- John Wise Assistant Professor of Physics Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Georgia Tech http://cosmo.gatech.edu _______________________________________________ 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