Mailman 3 3.0 Documentation - yt-dev

3.0 Documentation

older
Issue #751: PhasePlot is broken in...

Cameron Hummels

12 Dec 2013 12 Dec '13

3:34 p.m.

Hello everyone, Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs. I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think? Cameron -- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 1.1 KB)

Show replies by thread

Kacper Kowalik

13 Dec 13 Dec

4:07 a.m.

On 12/13/2013 12:34 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Hi Cameron, for the record such jenkins job already exists. It just fails during cookbook evaluation phase. As soon as the documentation is "buildable" with yt-3.0 it will magically appear on the website. Cheers, Kacper

Matthew Turk

5:42 a.m.

Hi Cameron, Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good. Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways. -MAtt On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

Cameron Hummels

7:37 a.m.

Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper? I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them. Let me know if you need help on this, Matt. Cameron On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately,

...
no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote: there is they

...
contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

Matthew Turk

7:40 a.m.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...

Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo. Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this. -Matt

...

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

Nathan Goldbaum

8:12 a.m.

I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct. I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal. On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels javascript:;> wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk javascript:;>

...
...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels javascript:;

...
wrote:

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on

wrote: the

...
...
...
webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org javascript:; http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org javascript:; 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 javascript:; http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org javascript:; http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

Cameron Hummels

8:21 a.m.

"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal." This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase. I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public. Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier. Cameron On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...

I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk

...
...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right

now, a

...
...
yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on

wrote: the

...
...
...
webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Matthew Turk

8:24 a.m.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I agree with this, but as I noted before, I think we can have a build of the docs that is not linked from the main website until it is largely up to date.

...

I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...
I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Cameron Hummels

8:28 a.m.

How do we go about doing this? Something through yt.readthedocs.org? Or a secret URL on yt-project.org/docs/3.0test or something? On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I agree with this, but as I noted before, I think we can have a build of the docs that is not linked from the main website until it is largely up to date.

...
I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs

that

...
are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...
I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs

to

...
be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't

yet

...
...
buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk
...
...
...
wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push

up

...
some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels < chummels@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 > branch, I > propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right > now, a > yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very > minor > changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, > there is > no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading > the > repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on > the > webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs > when > they > contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the > codebase > may > get considerably out of sync with the docs. > > I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot > targets > by > Kacper. What do people think? > > Cameron > > > -- > 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Matthew Turk

8:29 a.m.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

How do we go about doing this? Something through yt.readthedocs.org? Or a secret URL on yt-project.org/docs/3.0test or something?

All documentation builds can be found here: http://yt-project.org/docs/ -Matt

...

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I agree with this, but as I noted before, I think we can have a build of the docs that is not linked from the main website until it is largely up to date.

...
I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...
I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote: > > Hi Cameron, > > Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push > up > some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm > not > sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. > Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process > won't pass until they are, so that's good. > > Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some > time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them > mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we > haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer > aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are > different > in some key ways. > > -MAtt > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels > > wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 > > branch, I > > propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right > > now, a > > yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very > > minor > > changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. > > Unfortunately, > > there is > > no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading > > the > > repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs > > on > > the > > webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs > > when > > they > > contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the > > codebase > > may > > get considerably out of sync with the docs. > > > > I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot > > targets > > by > > Kacper. What do people think? > > > > Cameron > > > > > > -- > > 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Cameron Hummels

8:31 a.m.

I know they are there, but I wasn't sure if that was secret enough so snoopers don't discover the unfinished 3.0 docs. What needs to be done in order to build the 3.0 docs now, so that they appear on that page? On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
How do we go about doing this? Something through yt.readthedocs.org? Or a secret URL on yt-project.org/docs/3.0test or something?

All documentation builds can be found here:

http://yt-project.org/docs/

-Matt

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk

...
...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented,

I

...
...
don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I agree with this, but as I noted before, I think we can have a build of the docs that is not linked from the main website until it is largely up to date.

...
I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated

docs

...
that are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

...
I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync

...
...
...
...
would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels <

chummels@gmail.com>

...
wrote: > Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't > yet > buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that

...
...
...
...
...
> me > from > doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in > order for > them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper? > > I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the > user > base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new > changes to > the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

> Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one

...
...
...
...
...
but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in

...
...
...
...
...
2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

> > Cameron > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk > > wrote: >> >> Hi Cameron, >> >> Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely

wrote: that prevented point, the push

...
...
...
...
...
>> up >> some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm >> not >> sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. >> Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process >> won't pass until they are, so that's good. >> >> Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some >> time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them >> mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we >> haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer >> aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are >> different >> in some key ways. >> >> -MAtt >> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels >> >> wrote: >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 >> > branch, I >> > propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right >> > now, a >> > yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very >> > minor >> > changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. >> > Unfortunately, >> > there is >> > no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading >> > the >> > repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs >> > on >> > the >> > webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs >> > when >> > they >> > contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the >> > codebase >> > may >> > get considerably out of sync with the docs. >> > >> > I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot >> > targets >> > by >> > Kacper. What do people think? >> > >> > Cameron >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org

Matthew Turk

8:33 a.m.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

I know they are there, but I wasn't sure if that was secret enough so snoopers don't discover the unfinished 3.0 docs.

Let me clarify: I am not interested in keeping things secret. The whole point is to avoid having someone go to the website, find the link to a 3.0 build, and then see grossly, completely out of date documentation pieces. This is sufficient -- I just don't want a dropdown to 3.0 on the main page.

...

What needs to be done in order to build the 3.0 docs now, so that they appear on that page?

I assume updating whatever the issues were that Kacper reported earlier in the thread, which were mainly about the cookbook.

...

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
How do we go about doing this? Something through yt.readthedocs.org? Or a secret URL on yt-project.org/docs/3.0test or something?

All documentation builds can be found here:

http://yt-project.org/docs/

-Matt

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I agree with this, but as I noted before, I think we can have a build of the docs that is not linked from the main website until it is largely up to date.

...
I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...
I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels > > wrote: > > Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs > > aren't > > yet > > buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that > > prevented > > me > > from > > doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme > > in > > order for > > them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper? > > > > I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to > > the > > user > > base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new > > changes to > > the code as they make them. > > I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* > docs > will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs. > > > Let me know if you need help on this, Matt. > > I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the > cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one > point, > but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in > the > 2.x repo. > > Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this. > > -Matt > > > > > Cameron > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Cameron, > >> > >> Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely > >> push > >> up > >> some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but > >> I'm > >> not > >> sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to > >> date. > >> Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook > >> process > >> won't pass until they are, so that's good. > >> > >> Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend > >> some > >> time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them > >> mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we > >> haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the > >> developer > >> aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are > >> different > >> in some key ways. > >> > >> -MAtt > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels > >> > >> wrote: > >> > Hello everyone, > >> > > >> > Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the > >> > yt-3.0 > >> > branch, I > >> > propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. > >> > Right > >> > now, a > >> > yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are > >> > very > >> > minor > >> > changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. > >> > Unfortunately, > >> > there is > >> > no public way to view these documentations aside from > >> > downloading > >> > the > >> > repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 > >> > docs > >> > on > >> > the > >> > webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute > >> > docs > >> > when > >> > they > >> > contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the > >> > codebase > >> > may > >> > get considerably out of sync with the docs. > >> > > >> > I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot > >> > targets > >> > by > >> > Kacper. What do people think? > >> > > >> > Cameron > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > 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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- 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

John ZuHone

8:38 a.m.

My sentiments are along the lines of Matt's and Nathan's. If you're looking to avoid the kind of situation that led to the need for a sprint for the 2.6 docs, I'm afraid that it's already too late (at least as it appears to me). Whatever effort that we undertake for these docs will have to be a substantial one, no matter what. And I really think that Nathan's point is that compared to what's been done, there literally is only "epsilon" left. It does not appear to me that we are in a situation where we're going to keep adding tons of new functionality to 3.0 before the release. Others are more knowledgable about 3.0 than I, however, so I am most open to being corrected on this. I also share Matt's concern about incomplete docs for an incomplete release having a public face, not that I want to hide anything from anyone, but there is always a tendency for many to go for the most bleeding-edge thing. When this happens, and their analysis inevitably breaks, that builds a perception (whether fairly or not) that there is a bad design. So, although we always keep our development completely out in the open, we would save ourselves and our users lots of headaches by not promoting code that isn't ready for prime time. Giving the 3.0 docs a place on the front page docs list is unfortunately a way to run that risk, albeit inadvertently. If we want to place 3.0 docs on the web without such a prominent link, that would be acceptable to me. For my part I am happy to work on docs soon, but the timing at the moment isn't perfect. 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 Dec 13, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

"... given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal."

This is exactly the sentiment that I was trying to avoid. The longer the docs are out of date, the easier it is to justify not documenting that newest push that one makes to the codebase.

I understand that things are busy with the unit refactor, but I would say that as soon as it is accepted we should aim to have fully updated docs that are viewable to the public.

Matt, I can try to test the cookbook recipes if that makes it easier.

Cameron

...
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: I agree with Matt. If the 3.0 docs were only somewhat out of sync that would be one thing, but there's about a year's worth of work that needs to be covered before the docs are correct.

I understand your concern about documenting new features, however given that there is already so much that needs to be documented, I don't think adding epsilon on top of that is a big deal.

...
On Friday, December 13, 2013, Matthew Turk wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them.

I agree with having the docs, but I worry that having *incorrect* docs will be more damaging, particularly to perception, than no docs.

...
Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

I definitely do! The best way to get started is to go through the cookbook and make sure all the recipes work; I did this at one point, but I may have missed a few, and I know a few have been updated in the 2.x repo.

Today after the conference call I can devote some cycles to this.

-Matt

...
Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately, there is no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when they contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Kacper Kowalik

9:34 a.m.

On 13.12.2013 16:37, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

Nope, I guess you only build part of them, like sphinx-build && make html. Additionally there are cookbook recipes that need to be run in order to get all images, runipy etc. First error that jenkins encounters is: Exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "helper_scripts/run_recipes.py", line 33, in run_receipe File "/tmp/jenkins/workspace/yt-docs-3.0/source/cookbook/streamlines_isocontour.py", line 11, in <module> streamlines = Streamlines(pf,pos,'x-velocity', 'y-velocity', 'z-velocity', length=1.0) File "/tmp/jenkins/workspace/yt-docs-3.0/yt-3.0/yt/visualization/streamlines.py", line 103, in __init__ log_fields=[False,False,False]) TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'log_fields' Cheers, Kacper

...

I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them. Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately,

...
no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on the webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote: there is they

...
contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

Cameron Hummels

10:32 a.m.

Thanks, Kacper. I'll look at trying to get all of the cookbook recipes to work. I would request (and it sounds like some of the responses I've gotten here suggest support of this) that we have the 3.0 docs fully up to date before we release 3.0 to the public. Because I have limited experience with 3.0 (I only started using it this week), I do not know if I'm the one who should lead any kind of documentation effort to bring the 3.0 docs up to speed with the state of the code, but I think that it should happen. This is not a criticism of the current state of things--just a request for future actions. Cameron On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:

...

On 13.12.2013 16:37, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...
Sounds good, but I guess I don't understand why the 3.0 docs aren't yet buildable. I can build them locally. The only thing that prevented me from doing this is that I had to pip install the new bootstrap theme in order for them to not fail. Is this what you mean, Kacper?

Nope, I guess you only build part of them, like sphinx-build && make html. Additionally there are cookbook recipes that need to be run in order to get all images, runipy etc. First error that jenkins encounters is:

Exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "helper_scripts/run_recipes.py", line 33, in run_receipe File

"/tmp/jenkins/workspace/yt-docs-3.0/source/cookbook/streamlines_isocontour.py", line 11, in <module> streamlines = Streamlines(pf,pos,'x-velocity', 'y-velocity', 'z-velocity', length=1.0) File

"/tmp/jenkins/workspace/yt-docs-3.0/yt-3.0/yt/visualization/streamlines.py", line 103, in __init__ log_fields=[False,False,False]) TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'log_fields'

Cheers, Kacper

...
I understand not wanting to have out of date docs available to the user base, but i'd love to get something up so people can document new changes to the code as they make them. Let me know if you need help on this, Matt.

Cameron

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...
Hi Cameron,

Thanks for taking this on! I think that we should definitely push up some 3.0 docs (which it sounds like Kacper is working on) but I'm not sure that we should link them *until* they are mostly up to date. Fortunately the cookbook process and the IPython Notebook process won't pass until they are, so that's good.

Once the AGORA telecon is over today I should be able to spend some time hitting the easy changes to the docs that should bring them mostly up to speed. One thing we'll need to do with 3.0 that we haven't in the past is emphasize much more strongly the developer aspects, as some areas of the code -- while cleaner -- are different in some key ways.

-MAtt

...
Hello everyone,

Now that the bulk of the development is moving over to the yt-3.0 branch, I propose we have the yt-3.0 docs available on the website. Right now, a yt-3.0 branch exists in the yt-doc repository, but there are very minor changes in it relative to the yt 2.x documentation. Unfortunately,

...
no public way to view these documentations aside from downloading the repository and building locally. I think by putting the 3.0 docs on

...
webpage, it will make it more likely that people contribute docs when

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote: there is the they

...
contribute new code changes, whereas if we wait too long, the codebase may get considerably out of sync with the docs.

I think this will only require a slight change to the buildbot targets by Kacper. What do people think?

Cameron

-- 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

_______________________________________________ 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

3780

Age (days ago)

3781

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

14 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Cameron Hummels
John ZuHone
Kacper Kowalik
Matthew Turk
Nathan Goldbaum

3.0 Documentation

tags

participants (5)