proposition to close svn-trunk to active development

Hi guys, It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing through hg. Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done. Thoughts, anybody? Britton

Hi All, I heartily second this. j On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing through hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.org

Third On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I heartily second this.
j
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: through
hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.org _______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Samuel W. Skillman DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellow Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy University of Colorado at Boulder samuel.skillman[at]colorado.edu

I'm on board, too. Trunk should be stable, and a staging ground for pushing into a release. hg can be unstable. I know I broke this policy only hours ago, but I think before a big push back to trunk, we should ask for approval and get a second. I don't mind handling most of the merges, but in cases where someone has done a LOT of work, I'll happily send out patches -- which is what I did with the last big merge, a couple months ago. For instance, when Stephen's structure function goes in, I think he should be the one to 'svn ci' it. In the next release, which I think may not be very far off, we should also document this in the proper docs. I think adding a "How is yt developed?" section to the docs would be good. -Matt On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I heartily second this.
j
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing through hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.org _______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org

That's not a bad idea. Even just a development guidelines page might be nice. Britton On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm on board, too. Trunk should be stable, and a staging ground for pushing into a release. hg can be unstable. I know I broke this policy only hours ago, but I think before a big push back to trunk, we should ask for approval and get a second. I don't mind handling most of the merges, but in cases where someone has done a LOT of work, I'll happily send out patches -- which is what I did with the last big merge, a couple months ago. For instance, when Stephen's structure function goes in, I think he should be the one to 'svn ci' it.
In the next release, which I think may not be very far off, we should also document this in the proper docs. I think adding a "How is yt developed?" section to the docs would be good.
-Matt
Hi All,
I heartily second this.
j
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote: through
hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.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

We have this: http://yt.enzotools.org/wiki/HackingGuidelines but it could use some TLC. On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not a bad idea. Even just a development guidelines page might be nice.
Britton
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm on board, too. Trunk should be stable, and a staging ground for pushing into a release. hg can be unstable. I know I broke this policy only hours ago, but I think before a big push back to trunk, we should ask for approval and get a second. I don't mind handling most of the merges, but in cases where someone has done a LOT of work, I'll happily send out patches -- which is what I did with the last big merge, a couple months ago. For instance, when Stephen's structure function goes in, I think he should be the one to 'svn ci' it.
In the next release, which I think may not be very far off, we should also document this in the proper docs. I think adding a "How is yt developed?" section to the docs would be good.
-Matt
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I heartily second this.
j
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing through hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.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

Hi guys, In keeping wiht Britton's new proposal, I've added notifications for the main 'yt' repo in hg to go to the yt-svn mailing list. Might be a couple glitches, but I think it should work. My inclination is to leave off cookbook and yt-doc for now, since the RSS reader picks those up. -Matt On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
We have this: http://yt.enzotools.org/wiki/HackingGuidelines but it could use some TLC.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not a bad idea. Even just a development guidelines page might be nice.
Britton
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm on board, too. Trunk should be stable, and a staging ground for pushing into a release. hg can be unstable. I know I broke this policy only hours ago, but I think before a big push back to trunk, we should ask for approval and get a second. I don't mind handling most of the merges, but in cases where someone has done a LOT of work, I'll happily send out patches -- which is what I did with the last big merge, a couple months ago. For instance, when Stephen's structure function goes in, I think he should be the one to 'svn ci' it.
In the next release, which I think may not be very far off, we should also document this in the proper docs. I think adding a "How is yt developed?" section to the docs would be good.
-Matt
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, j s oishi <jsoishi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I heartily second this.
j
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that most of yt development has migrated away from the svn-trunk to the various mercurial branches. Like most of you guys, I imagine, I am now using the main hg branch of yt almost exclusively, since that's where everything new that I need gets put right away. It's rare, but every now and then something goes straight into the svn trunk without passing through hg.
Just to make it official, I would like to propose that the svn-trunk not be used for any active development, but only a staging area for updates coming from the hg branch and destined for a release version. This way, we don't run into the issue of having to merge changes in two directions between svn and hg, which I think is a bit of a pain. I get the impression that almost all development is taking place in hg already, but I think it may be beneficial to have an official policy on how this sort of thing should be done.
Thoughts, anybody?
Britton
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- ---------------- i am dot org: www.jsoishi.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
participants (4)
-
Britton Smith
-
j s oishi
-
Matthew Turk
-
Sam Skillman