+1 On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Britton Smith wrote:

...

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the rebranding. The unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion, the primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to that. This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break things.

I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the main repository in an "experimental" bookmark. I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower the barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

+1, for all of these reasons.

I'm really keen to get things merged in, but nervous -- for the reasons you note.

-Matt

...

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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 The documentation has also come a long way since this topic was last discussed on the list. On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, Sam Skillman wrote:

+1 On Mar 12, 2014 7:39 AM, "John ZuHone" wrote:

+1

On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

...

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the rebranding. The unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion,

...

primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to

...

This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break things.

I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Britton Smith wrote: the that. main

...

repository in an "experimental" bookmark. I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower the barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

+1, for all of these reasons.

I'm really keen to get things merged in, but nervous -- for the reasons you note.

-Matt

...

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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

Okay, seems like we have broad consensus, but I want to wait a day or two before doing anything to ensure all sides are heard from. But, one last outstanding question: can we merge the rebranding PR in to the unitrefactor work? https://bitbucket.org/MatthewTurk/yt/pull-request/85/rebranding On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Matthew Turk wrote:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...

+1

The documentation has also come a long way since this topic was last discussed on the list.

I agree, and I think it's nearing the "mergable" state. Not releasable, but mergable.

...

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, Sam Skillman wrote:

...

+1

On Mar 12, 2014 7:39 AM, "John ZuHone" wrote:

+1

On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Britton Smith wrote:

...

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the rebranding. The unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion, the primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to that. This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break things.

I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the main repository in an "experimental" bookmark. I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower the barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

+1, for all of these reasons.

I'm really keen to get things merged in, but nervous -- for the reasons you note.

-Matt

...

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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

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

+1 While in general, I would advocate that PRs only be accepted when they include sufficient documentation, in this case, it sounds fair to merge into the main 3.0 repo with the bookmark, as it will be a lot less cumbersome to test and document things before removing the bookmark and going gold. Good work, everyone! Cameron On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Britton Smith wrote:

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the rebranding. The unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion, the primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to that. This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break things.

*I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the main repository in an "experimental" bookmark.* I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower the barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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

Great, I think this has the requisite support. Matt, would you care to do the honors of pushing both the rebranding and unitrefactor PRs to this new "experimental" bookmark in yt_analysis? Britton On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote:

+1

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

+1

While in general, I would advocate that PRs only be accepted when they include sufficient documentation, in this case, it sounds fair to merge into the main 3.0 repo with the bookmark, as it will be a lot less cumbersome to test and document things before removing the bookmark and going gold.

Good work, everyone!

Cameron

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Britton Smith wrote:

...

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the rebranding. The unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion, the primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to that. This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break things.

*I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the main repository in an "experimental" bookmark.* I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower the barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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

Hi Matt, Perfect, thanks for the summary of the state of things as well. 1130 changeset?! Yowza! Britton On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Matthew Turk wrote:

Hi Britton,

Okay, done.

There are now three bookmarks that will get updated in the main yt_analysis/yt repository.

development: this is the yt-3.0 branch that does not include unitrefactor experimental: this is the yt-3.0 branch that does include unitrefactor and rebranding @: this is yt-2.x

stable branch is still the stable release. The differences between @ and stable are quite minimal right now. I've also tagged a yt-3.0a4 which is pre-unitrefactor/rebranding.

Also, this was 1130 changesets.

-Matt

...

Great, I think this has the requisite support. Matt, would you care to do the honors of pushing both the rebranding and unitrefactor PRs to this new "experimental" bookmark in yt_analysis?

Britton

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Anthony Scopatz wrote:

...

+1

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Cameron Hummels wrote:

...

+1

While in general, I would advocate that PRs only be accepted when they include sufficient documentation, in this case, it sounds fair to

merge into

...

...

the main 3.0 repo with the bookmark, as it will be a lot less cumbersome to test and document things before removing the bookmark and going gold.

Good work, everyone!

Cameron

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Britton Smith

...

...

wrote:

...

Hi all,

There are two major changes coming soon for yt-3.0 as we march our way to an official release. These are the unitrefactor and the

rebranding. The

...

unitrefactor adds symbolically expressed, convertible units to all fields and scalars in yt. The rebranding is a rethinking of some of yt's conceptual entities (such as thinking of a "dataset" instead of a "parameter file", an "indexer" instead of a "hierarchy", etc.) and attempt to de-astro the infrastructure as we start to think about working with other sciences. The unitrefactor also contains some rebranding efforts in the form of field renaming (e.g., "Density" becoming "density"), so these changes are somewhat linked.

What we need to figure out is the process by which these changes are merged into the yt-3.0 branch of the main repo (yt_analysis). In my opinion, the primary issues are the following:

1. Develop is cumbersome because it is taking place within Matt's fork, meaning that all contributors have to fork his fork and issue PRs to

...

...

...

...

This is annoying because one has to maintain two forks and because most people aren't getting notified of PRs issued to Matt's fork.

2. Experience has shown that the only way to identify all the bugs is by actually attempting to use the code to do Real Stuff. What this means is we need all the frontends represented and people putting the various functionality and analysis modules to use. I think for most people, having to pull changes in from an external repo and perform various mercurial magic just to test changes is a bridge to far. We need to lower the barrier to entry.

3. There is still a good amount of documentation, testing, polishing, etc before this can be called stable. Even though yt-3.0 is still officially Under Development, a number of people are using it to do actual things and so it is unreasonable to just land this on them without full documentation and with such a high likelihood that it will break

...

...

...

...

I propose that the unitrefactor and rebranding work be pulled into the main repository in an "experimental" bookmark. I think this will a) streamline development and make it more visible to everyone, b) lower

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Britton Smith wrote: that. things. the

...

...

...

...

barrier to trying it out for people so we can actually get everything tested and working, and c) not disrupt the workflow of the current users of yt-3.0. I also think this is the quickest way of satisfying everyone in terms of getting all of the necessary documentation written as it makes the development significantly more open and accessible.

For more info on what needs to be done on both of these fronts and for yt-3.0 in general, see the trello boards: https://trello.com/yt_analysis

Can we get a +/-1 on this?

Britton

_______________________________________________ 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

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