RFC: Staggered deprecation through 3.1 and 3.2
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 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
I'm +1 on this, particularly since I'm at fault for not pushing on the 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 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
What about a 3.0beta and then a stable 3.0 instead of 3.0 and 3.1? On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm +1 on this, particularly since I'm at fault for not pushing on the 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 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
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 the VR as much as I'd like to.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
My understanding is that the halo finding interfaces have all been updated by Hilary in 3.0 and that they did not work at all prior to that. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:32 PM, 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 the 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 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
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 the 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 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
+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 the 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 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
Hi, I see your problem. I don't think your '2014' idea would be compatible with http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386/ I would say an rc tag has less stigma or a .dev pre release, although pypi won't install that by default. Stuart On 24 Jun 2014 17:38, "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 the
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 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
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in the 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 the 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 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
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? On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in the 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 the 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 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
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
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in the 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 > the > 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 >> 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
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <
wrote:
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in the 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
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 >> the >> 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 >>> 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
nathan12343@gmail.com> the 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
_______________________________________________ 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
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work. That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time. I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here. Cameron On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <
wrote:
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the
the 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
> 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 >>> the >>> 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
>>>> we >>>> should de-couple the release from all of the API breakages, and >>>> instead note which interfaces we know are going to change in
>>>> 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 >>>> 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
nathan12343@gmail.com> plan in the perhaps the 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');>> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');>> wrote:
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?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <
nathan12343@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');>>
wrote:
I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the
the 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.zuhone@nasa.gov');> > jzuhone@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuhone@gmail.com');> > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Matthew Turk < matthewturk@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','samskillman@gmail.com');>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm +1 on this, particularly since I'm at fault for not
> >>> the > >>> VR > >>> as much as I'd like to. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Turk > >>> <matthewturk@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> >>>> 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
> >>>> we > >>>> should de-couple the release from all of the API breakages, and > >>>> instead note which interfaces we know are going to change in
> >>>> 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 > >>>> the > >>>> perspective of pragmatism, if we identify those sections of
> >>>> code > >>>> that are *going* to change, and we pitch 3.0 as the first
> >>>> a > >>>> staged release of totally rewritten infrastructure, we can
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');>> plan in pushing on like perhaps the the part of likely
> >>>> come > >>>> out okay. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to put this out there for discussion. > >>>> > >>>> -Matt > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> yt-dev mailing list > >>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> > >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> yt-dev mailing list > >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> > >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > > _______________________________________________ > > yt-dev mailing list > > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> > > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing. https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
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
trello card so I can work on it?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the
> the > 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
>> >>> the >> >>> 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
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>> we >> >>>> should de-couple the release from all of the API breakages, and >> >>>> instead note which interfaces we know are going to change in
>> >>>> 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 >> >>>> the >> >>>> perspective of pragmatism, if we identify those sections of
>> >>>> code >> >>>> that are *going* to change, and we pitch 3.0 as the first
>> >>>> a >> >>>> staged release of totally rewritten infrastructure, we can
a plan in pushing on like perhaps the the part of 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org
Ah - I see that now. Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared. This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com
wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <
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? > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the
> > the > > 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
> >> >>> the > >> >>> 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
> >> >>>> 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
> >> >>>> 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 > >> >>>> the > >> >>>> perspective of pragmatism, if we identify those sections of
> >> >>>> code > >> >>>> that are *going* to change, and we pitch 3.0 as the first
> >> >>>> a > >> >>>> staged release of totally rewritten infrastructure, we can
matthewturk@gmail.com> plan in pushing on like perhaps the part of 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
_______________________________________________ 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 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
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below). For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script: e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py * VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py * Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py * Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py * Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py * Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field. This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!) Cameron On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days ago.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the plan in >> > the >> > 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 >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> 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 >> >> >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 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
Getting all the cookbook recipes working is absolutely a blocker for 3.0. I think we're all in agreement on that. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the existing recipes can and will be made to work by porting existing functionality to yt-3.0. This mostly involves adopting the various newisms, units, field names, etc. We will not release yt-3.0 with broken functionality. This is doable on a relatively short timescale I think. However, the new VR machinery will not be ready for a bit longer, so I think it's ok for that to come in 3.1. As far as halos are concerned, here's the status there: - halo_analysis completely replaces the HaloProfiler. The halo_analysis functionality is fully documented (Thanks Hilary!) and the HaloProfiler has been removed from the source and the docs. - all halo finders have been ported and are now compliant with halo_analysis (Thanks again to Hilary). - HaloCatalogTimeSeries is a ways off and will need to be pushed to 3.1 or 3.2. This is functionality that never existed anywhere, so that's fine. - the other cards on the halo_analysis board are minor enhancements, not blockers - the halo mass function is almost ready and has an open PR that just needs a few things cleaned up and it's ready. - the big thing we are missing is a merger tree as neither of the old ones were ported. The idea is for them to work with the halo_analysis and HaloCatalogTimeSeries, which will probably require work akin to a redesign. For this reason, this will probably need to wait until 3.1. Britton On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com > wrote:
> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days > ago. > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is > the plan in > >> > the > >> > 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 > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> 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 > >> >> >>>> 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 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
There are still some vestiges of the old halo machinery in the docs. Britton, do you think you'd be up for looking over the halo analysis docs and updating it where necessary? I'm specifically referring to some of the errors and warnings in the docs build, (see http://tests.yt-project.org/job/yt-docs-3.0/lastSuccessfulBuild/consoleFull, search for "halo") but it probably also deserves a full proofread. I haven't felt comfortable touching the halo finding docs since I'm not familiar with any of the halo analysis code. On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Getting all the cookbook recipes working is absolutely a blocker for 3.0. I think we're all in agreement on that. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the existing recipes can and will be made to work by porting existing functionality to yt-3.0. This mostly involves adopting the various newisms, units, field names, etc. We will not release yt-3.0 with broken functionality. This is doable on a relatively short timescale I think. However, the new VR machinery will not be ready for a bit longer, so I think it's ok for that to come in 3.1.
As far as halos are concerned, here's the status there: - halo_analysis completely replaces the HaloProfiler. The halo_analysis functionality is fully documented (Thanks Hilary!) and the HaloProfiler has been removed from the source and the docs. - all halo finders have been ported and are now compliant with halo_analysis (Thanks again to Hilary). - HaloCatalogTimeSeries is a ways off and will need to be pushed to 3.1 or 3.2. This is functionality that never existed anywhere, so that's fine. - the other cards on the halo_analysis board are minor enhancements, not blockers - the halo mass function is almost ready and has an open PR that just needs a few things cleaned up and it's ready. - the big thing we are missing is a merger tree as neither of the old ones were ported. The idea is for them to work with the halo_analysis and HaloCatalogTimeSeries, which will probably require work akin to a redesign. For this reason, this will probably need to wait until 3.1.
Britton
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chummels@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chummels@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');>> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chummels@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let > me know if you need something more detailed. > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk < > matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days >> ago. >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is >> the plan in >> >> > the >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >>>> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org');> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Nathan, yeah, I can do that. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
There are still some vestiges of the old halo machinery in the docs. Britton, do you think you'd be up for looking over the halo analysis docs and updating it where necessary? I'm specifically referring to some of the errors and warnings in the docs build, (see http://tests.yt-project.org/job/yt-docs-3.0/lastSuccessfulBuild/consoleFull, search for "halo") but it probably also deserves a full proofread.
I haven't felt comfortable touching the halo finding docs since I'm not familiar with any of the halo analysis code.
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Getting all the cookbook recipes working is absolutely a blocker for 3.0. I think we're all in agreement on that. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the existing recipes can and will be made to work by porting existing functionality to yt-3.0. This mostly involves adopting the various newisms, units, field names, etc. We will not release yt-3.0 with broken functionality. This is doable on a relatively short timescale I think. However, the new VR machinery will not be ready for a bit longer, so I think it's ok for that to come in 3.1.
As far as halos are concerned, here's the status there: - halo_analysis completely replaces the HaloProfiler. The halo_analysis functionality is fully documented (Thanks Hilary!) and the HaloProfiler has been removed from the source and the docs. - all halo finders have been ported and are now compliant with halo_analysis (Thanks again to Hilary). - HaloCatalogTimeSeries is a ways off and will need to be pushed to 3.1 or 3.2. This is functionality that never existed anywhere, so that's fine. - the other cards on the halo_analysis board are minor enhancements, not blockers - the halo mass function is almost ready and has an open PR that just needs a few things cleaned up and it's ready. - the big thing we are missing is a merger tree as neither of the old ones were ported. The idea is for them to work with the halo_analysis and HaloCatalogTimeSeries, which will probably require work akin to a redesign. For this reason, this will probably need to wait until 3.1.
Britton
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I > identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For > example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not > currently work. >
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
> That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was > going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I > figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it > wasn't worth the time. > > I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the > big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door > asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to > have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else > wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy > VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who > have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even > if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here. > > Cameron > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. >> Let me know if you need something more detailed. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk < >> matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days >>> ago. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > 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? >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>> nathan12343@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is >>> the plan in >>> >> > the >>> >> > 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 >>> >> >> >>> the >>> >> >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >>>> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 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
Britton, there are also some halo recipes in the cookbook, which I'm not sure where we want to replace, where we want to cut, etc. Right now they aren't working, but I don't know what to do with them: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook halo_merger_tree.py halo_plotting.py halo_profiler.py This doesn't have to fall at your feet, but if you're looking at the halo docs, this might be a thing to glance at too. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathan, yeah, I can do that.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
There are still some vestiges of the old halo machinery in the docs. Britton, do you think you'd be up for looking over the halo analysis docs and updating it where necessary? I'm specifically referring to some of the errors and warnings in the docs build, (see http://tests.yt-project.org/job/yt-docs-3.0/lastSuccessfulBuild/consoleFull, search for "halo") but it probably also deserves a full proofread.
I haven't felt comfortable touching the halo finding docs since I'm not familiar with any of the halo analysis code.
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Getting all the cookbook recipes working is absolutely a blocker for 3.0. I think we're all in agreement on that. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the existing recipes can and will be made to work by porting existing functionality to yt-3.0. This mostly involves adopting the various newisms, units, field names, etc. We will not release yt-3.0 with broken functionality. This is doable on a relatively short timescale I think. However, the new VR machinery will not be ready for a bit longer, so I think it's ok for that to come in 3.1.
As far as halos are concerned, here's the status there: - halo_analysis completely replaces the HaloProfiler. The halo_analysis functionality is fully documented (Thanks Hilary!) and the HaloProfiler has been removed from the source and the docs. - all halo finders have been ported and are now compliant with halo_analysis (Thanks again to Hilary). - HaloCatalogTimeSeries is a ways off and will need to be pushed to 3.1 or 3.2. This is functionality that never existed anywhere, so that's fine. - the other cards on the halo_analysis board are minor enhancements, not blockers - the halo mass function is almost ready and has an open PR that just needs a few things cleaned up and it's ready. - the big thing we are missing is a merger tree as neither of the old ones were ported. The idea is for them to work with the halo_analysis and HaloCatalogTimeSeries, which will probably require work akin to a redesign. For this reason, this will probably need to wait until 3.1.
Britton
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com
wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I >> identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For >> example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not >> currently work. >> > > I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a > blocker? > > >> That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I >> was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I >> figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it >> wasn't worth the time. >> >> I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the >> big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door >> asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to >> have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else >> wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy >> VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who >> have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even >> if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here. >> >> Cameron >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. >>> Let me know if you need something more detailed. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk < >>> matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days >>>> ago. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>>> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > 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? >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>>> nathan12343@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is >>>> the plan in >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > 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 >>>> >> >> >>> the >>>> >> >> >>> 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 >>>> >> >> >>>> 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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 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
Cameron, thanks for pointing those out. halo_profiler.py can be redone easily with halo_analysis and I'll do that. halo_plotting.py I'll have to look into. Sadly, I don't know what to do about halo_merger_tree.py right now other than remove it and keep a page in the docs for it marked as "Currently not available." On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
Britton, there are also some halo recipes in the cookbook, which I'm not sure where we want to replace, where we want to cut, etc. Right now they aren't working, but I don't know what to do with them:
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
halo_merger_tree.py halo_plotting.py halo_profiler.py
This doesn't have to fall at your feet, but if you're looking at the halo docs, this might be a thing to glance at too.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathan, yeah, I can do that.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
There are still some vestiges of the old halo machinery in the docs. Britton, do you think you'd be up for looking over the halo analysis docs and updating it where necessary? I'm specifically referring to some of the errors and warnings in the docs build, (see http://tests.yt-project.org/job/yt-docs-3.0/lastSuccessfulBuild/consoleFull, search for "halo") but it probably also deserves a full proofread.
I haven't felt comfortable touching the halo finding docs since I'm not familiar with any of the halo analysis code.
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Getting all the cookbook recipes working is absolutely a blocker for 3.0. I think we're all in agreement on that. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the existing recipes can and will be made to work by porting existing functionality to yt-3.0. This mostly involves adopting the various newisms, units, field names, etc. We will not release yt-3.0 with broken functionality. This is doable on a relatively short timescale I think. However, the new VR machinery will not be ready for a bit longer, so I think it's ok for that to come in 3.1.
As far as halos are concerned, here's the status there: - halo_analysis completely replaces the HaloProfiler. The halo_analysis functionality is fully documented (Thanks Hilary!) and the HaloProfiler has been removed from the source and the docs. - all halo finders have been ported and are now compliant with halo_analysis (Thanks again to Hilary). - HaloCatalogTimeSeries is a ways off and will need to be pushed to 3.1 or 3.2. This is functionality that never existed anywhere, so that's fine. - the other cards on the halo_analysis board are minor enhancements, not blockers - the halo mass function is almost ready and has an open PR that just needs a few things cleaned up and it's ready. - the big thing we are missing is a merger tree as neither of the old ones were ported. The idea is for them to work with the halo_analysis and HaloCatalogTimeSeries, which will probably require work akin to a redesign. For this reason, this will probably need to wait until 3.1.
Britton
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because > the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing. > > https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I >>> identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For >>> example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not >>> currently work. >>> >> >> I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a >> blocker? >> >> >>> That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I >>> was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I >>> figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it >>> wasn't worth the time. >>> >>> I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in >>> the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the >>> door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on >>> waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if >>> everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having >>> a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to >>> getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well >>> as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority >>> here. >>> >>> Cameron >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. >>>> Let me know if you need something more detailed. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk < >>>> matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few >>>>> days ago. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>>>> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > 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? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum < >>>>> nathan12343@gmail.com> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this >>>>> is the plan in >>>>> >> > the >>>>> >> > 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 >>>>> >> >> >>> the >>>>> >> >> >>> 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 >>>>> >> >> >>>> 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 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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 > 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
Hi Cameron, On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
Sam and I will work out which goes to which of us, but I will probably take these on.
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
I will take all of these.
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
I think either Nathan or John, if they have time, might be good for these. Failing that, I will.
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
I'll do these. To summarize, here are the recipes I have committed to fixing: global_phase_plots.py profile_with_variance.py rad_velocity.py radial_profile_styles.py? simple_profile.py time_series_profiles.py save_profiles.py aligned_cutting_plane.py free_free_field.py simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py and probably also: amrkdtree_downsampling.py camera_movement.py opaque_rendering.py render_with_box_and_grids.py -Matt
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does not currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, but I figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let me know if you need something more detailed.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days > ago. > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum > <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum > >> <nathan12343@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is the > >> > plan in > >> > the > >> > 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 > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> 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 > >> >> >>>> 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 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
Awesome!! This is great news! I've poked around at some of them, but there are many dark corners of the code that I don't necessarily understand, so having you take a shot will help immensely. Thanks, Matt! Cameron On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Cameron,
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading
description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote: the the
best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
Sam and I will work out which goes to which of us, but I will probably take these on.
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
I will take all of these.
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
I think either Nathan or John, if they have time, might be good for these. Failing that, I will.
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
I'll do these.
To summarize, here are the recipes I have committed to fixing:
global_phase_plots.py profile_with_variance.py rad_velocity.py radial_profile_styles.py? simple_profile.py time_series_profiles.py save_profiles.py aligned_cutting_plane.py free_free_field.py simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py
and probably also:
amrkdtree_downsampling.py camera_movement.py opaque_rendering.py render_with_box_and_grids.py
-Matt
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to
a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that
card
is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all
cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because
cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com>
wrote:
I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does
not
currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update,
but I
figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, so it wasn't worth the time.
I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the big jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the door asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on waiting to have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone else wants a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy VR and awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who have not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) even if it takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here.
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. Let > me know if you need something more detailed. > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk < matthewturk@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days >> ago. >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum >> <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum >> >> <nathan12343@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is
>> >> > plan in >> >> > the >> >> > 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
>> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >>> 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
>> >> >> >>>> APIs we >> >> >> >>>> thought we'd need to before release. This included
take the the the the the 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 >> >> >> >>>> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 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
No problem. I've been pushing my changes in bookmark "cookbookupdate" in my fork. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
Awesome!! This is great news! I've poked around at some of them, but there are many dark corners of the code that I don't necessarily understand, so having you take a shot will help immensely. Thanks, Matt!
Cameron
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Cameron,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I will continue to work on these, but you're right, we need more people working on these little issues or this will continue to be a big blocker and not get done. I can assign specific bugs to the specialists on those issues, if it is helpful (see below).
For all issues, see this page: https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook . Reading the description can give you some clues as to the source of the error, but the best way to diagnose it is simply to go into the doc cookbook directory and try to run the python script:
e.g. $ cd $YT_DEST/doc/source/cookbook $ python script.py
* VR - KDTree issues (Sam Skillman? Matt Turk?) ----amrkdtree_downsampling.py ----camera_movement.py -- something going on with statusbar in brick counting! ----opaque_rendering.py -- same as camera_movement.py ----render_with_box_and_grids.py
Sam and I will work out which goes to which of us, but I will probably take these on.
* Light Rays and Light Cones (Britton Smith, John Zuhone, Devin Silvia) ----make_light_ray.py ----unique_light_cone_projections.py ----light_cone_projection.py ----light_cone_with_halo_mask.py
* Profiles (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum, other?) ----global_phase_plots.py ----profile_with_variance.py ----rad_velocity.py ----radial_profile_styles.py? ----simple_profile.py ----time_series_profiles.py ----save_profiles.py
I will take all of these.
* Units working with everything in yt (Nathan Goldbaum, Matt Turk, John Zuhone) ----hse_field.py ----simple_off_axis_projection.py
I think either Nathan or John, if they have time, might be good for these. Failing that, I will.
* Miscellany ----aligned_cutting_plane.py -- something is wrong with the derived quantity AngularMomentumVector() in that it doesn't work fully for gas, but seems to work OK for particles. ----free_free_field.py--creating a new derived field (Matt Turk, Nathan Goldbaum) ----simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py -- vorticity_squared fails as a field.
I'll do these.
To summarize, here are the recipes I have committed to fixing:
global_phase_plots.py profile_with_variance.py rad_velocity.py radial_profile_styles.py? simple_profile.py time_series_profiles.py save_profiles.py aligned_cutting_plane.py free_free_field.py simple_slice_with_multiple_fields.py
and probably also:
amrkdtree_downsampling.py camera_movement.py opaque_rendering.py render_with_box_and_grids.py
-Matt
This is by no means a requirement to work on this, but it would help to take a look at it to see if you can help correct a small bug here and there if your name is listed here (or even if it isn't!)
Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah - I see that now.
Yes, I agree that fixing the cookbook should be a blocker. FWIW that card is marked as such. As I said the other day, the blockers are on the yt-3.0 and the documentation board. We won't do the yt-3.0 release until all the cards marked as blockers are cleared.
This is a big task - any help we can get on this from anyone following along would be much appreciated. There are a lot of little tasks or tasks that can be completed in a couple hours by anyone that has a little with yt-3.0.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote:
I think all of the cookbook items are blockers to be honest, because the cookbook recipes should be tests that are seen as failing.
https://trello.com/c/NJMfoXdl/22-be-able-to-run-the-cookbook
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think there remain some issues in the VR working in 3.0, which I > identified on the cookbook post on the trello board for yt-3.0. For > example, I know the overlaying grids and overlaying boundaries does > not > currently work.
I don't see this on trello. Can you make a card and mark it as a blocker?
> > That may be an easy fix, but it's something to keep in mind. I was > going to work on it last week as I was doing the cookbook update, > but I > figured it was just going to get replaced with the scene interface, > so it > wasn't worth the time. > > I guess I'd still like to have all of the API breakage occur in the > big > jump from 2.x to 3.0, but if people really want to get 3.0 out the > door > asap, then perhaps that isn't compatible. Personally, I'm +1 on > waiting to > have all the halo+VR stuff in 3.0 instead of 3.1, but if everyone > else wants > a 3.0 out sooner, I will not block it. I think having a super fancy > VR and > awesome halo interface is one of the big pulls to getting people who > have > not yet switched to join 3.0 (from both 2.x as well as non-users) > even if it > takes a few more months, but I may be the minority here. > > Cameron > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Nathan Goldbaum > <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ok - I think the script in the issue description is sufficient. >> Let >> me know if you need something more detailed. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Turk >> <matthewturk@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> That's the one -- you mentioned it in a blockers email a few days >>> ago. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Goldbaum >>> <nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > 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? >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Goldbaum >>> >> <nathan12343@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > I'd be +1 on this plan, although we should note that this is >>> >> > the >>> >> > plan in >>> >> > the >>> >> > 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 >>> >> >> >>> the >>> >> >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >>>> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 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
participants (7)
-
Britton Smith -
Cameron Hummels -
John ZuHone -
Matthew Turk -
Nathan Goldbaum -
Sam Skillman -
Stuart Mumford