On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Lately, a lot of the yt-3.0 dev has been going on in the unitrefactor
>> >> domain.  Britton, John, Nathan and I (in alphabetical order :) have
>> >> been pushing pretty hard on getting things in order.  I've been trying
>> >> to keep things organized a bit by using Trello, which Sam showed me
>> >> and was pretty cool -- I'm not sure I can give out access to writing
>> >> to the boards to anybody, but I think the yt boards are all "public"
>> >> readable, and you can request write privs:
>> >>
>> >> https://trello.com/b/yv7o0dTp/unit-refactor
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, as an update, here's where we stand on unit refactor.
>> >>
>> >> Big blockers:
>> >>
>> >>  * MOAB, GDF, Pluto, Chombo frontends
>> >>  * A few remaining (minor) cosmology issues that Britton's just about
>> >> got finished and for which I owe some unit tests
>> >>  * Some discussion about metallicity units:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://bitbucket.org/MatthewTurk/yt/pull-request/38/fixing-cgs-unit-conversions-for-angle-and
>> >>  * Docs haven't been copied in yet, but John Z has updated the
>> >> bootcamp to 3.0 (units) style.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not to sound like a broken record, but have the docs covering the unit
>> > refactor, SPH smoothing, and all of the other new things in unit
>> > refactor
>> > been written?  Or are you just talking here about moving the yt-docs
>> > repository (which only covers yt 2.x) into the yt-3.0 branch of the yt
>> > repository?  I'm excited to use the new yt, but I just want to make sure
>> > I
>> > know how and it is clear how it all works under the hood.
>>
>> The units docs have been written, and all of the bootcamps have been
>> updated.  I have not yet written the smoothing docs.  But, the bullet
>> point I meant was just about copying the docs in.
>
>
> Great to hear it!  Is it possible to get the smoothing docs in with this PR
> since this PR includes the smoothing functionality?

Right now the next time I see myself being able to devote a sustained
set of time to docs is mid- to late-March.  Between now and then I
have too many obligations both time-wise and related to development
with tight deadlines.

Assuming no one else wants to write them, then waiting on including
them will have to wait until then.  So whether the PR gets accepted or
not -- which is pretty much the same as saying whether or not we can
use mainline yt-3.0 for SPH analysis, unit refactor stuff, etc -- is
dependent on that.

The items that will require documenting:

 * The method being used (relatively short)
 * How to add new fields (relatively short)
 * How to load and utilize particle data (more complex)

While these seem somewhat straightforward, I am concerned that they
will require attention I can't devote at the moment as a result of too
many Pretzel Money situations I've found myself in.  ("Where is the
pretzel money?  When are you going to get the pretzel money?  And so
on.")  So rather than say, I will do these next, I am trying to be
realistic.

-Matt

>
> Good luck today!
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think that's ... just about it.  At some point, maybe not
>> >> *immediately*, we also want to get non-CGS units much, much easier to
>> >> set as the default.
>> >>
>> >> So, the other thing -- we *just* landed (in unit refactor) SPH support
>> >> with smoothing fields.  More on this is forthcoming, but I'm pretty
>> >> pleased with where it is now, and best of all there's room for
>> >> improvement and optimization.
>> >>
>> >> I'm going to be traveling a good amount the next couple weeks, but I
>> >> hope to be able to address the remaining blockers, and then we can
>> >> land the unit refactor in mainline yt-3.0 at some point after the
>> >> documentation is included.
>> >>
>> >> We'll let that sit for a while, and then at some point the
>> >> "rebranding" PR (which will be more invasive technically, but *less*
>> >> invasive API-wise) can be issued, tested, and landed.  I actually
>> >> think it might be reasonable to get 3.0 out ... kind of soon-ish.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, if you want to test it out, grab the unitrefactor bookmark
>> >> from MatthewTurk/yt ; I'll update the PR into the main yt repository
>> >> as soon as these next couple PRs pass into my repo.
>> >>
>> >> -Matt
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cameron Hummels
>> > Postdoctoral Researcher
>> > Steward Observatory
>> > University of Arizona
>> > http://chummels.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
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Steward Observatory
> University of Arizona
> http://chummels.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