Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com mailto:chummels@gmail.com> wrote: I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org http://chummels.org/_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Even though I don't want to support both the old and new VR interface, I think it may be worthwhile to have them side-by-side for some amount of time. Currently I've replaced the old stuff in-place, but perhaps it is worth the time to provide a visualization/legacy_volume_rendering and accompanying cython code in utilities/lib to allow migration?
If we were to do that, I'd be fine pulling in the new volume rendering at any time.
Sam
On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 6:47:35 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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 understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com mailto:chummels@gmail.com> wrote: I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org http://chummels.org/_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225 tel:631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com mailto:chummels@gmail.com> wrote: I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org http://chummels.org/_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225 tel:631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
I'm ok with releasing 3.1 with what's in it now and any last PRs people want to get in. Maybe the best thing would be to then pull in the new volume renderer immediately afterward with an announcement to yt-users. Then, the time between 3.1 and 3.2 can be used to shake out any remaining issues.
Britton
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request > queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might > be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the > next release. > > I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as > well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, > call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a > proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging. > > I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize > the hard work he's been putting in recently. > > Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for > further discussion. What do you all think? > > Nathan > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
Sounds good, but I worry that anyone tracking devel at that point might get surprised. The way hg handles this is that they by default commit to stable, and then merge from devel during the release period. I don't know that we have that kind of discipline or rigor to our process, but it would help with things if we knew all bugfixes were already oin stable.
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 12:42:36 PM Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
I'm ok with releasing 3.1 with what's in it now and any last PRs people want to get in. Maybe the best thing would be to then pull in the new volume renderer immediately afterward with an announcement to yt-users. Then, the time between 3.1 and 3.2 can be used to shake out any remaining issues.
Britton
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. > > Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? > > On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >> next release. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as >> well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, >> call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a >> proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging. >> >> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize >> the hard work he's been putting in recently. >> >> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >> further discussion. What do you all think? >> >> Nathan >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To be clear, I'm talking about merging devel into stable, doing the 3.1 release, and then pulling the new VR into devel. Is this different from what you envision?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good, but I worry that anyone tracking devel at that point might get surprised. The way hg handles this is that they by default commit to stable, and then merge from devel during the release period. I don't know that we have that kind of discipline or rigor to our process, but it would help with things if we knew all bugfixes were already oin stable.
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 12:42:36 PM Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
I'm ok with releasing 3.1 with what's in it now and any last PRs people want to get in. Maybe the best thing would be to then pull in the new volume renderer immediately afterward with an announcement to yt-users. Then, the time between 3.1 and 3.2 can be used to shake out any remaining issues.
Britton
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith < brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good to me, too. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. >> >> Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? >> >> On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >>> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >>> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >>> next release. >>> >>> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >>> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >>> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >>> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >>> low-hanging issue triaging. >>> >>> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >>> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >>> >>> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >>> further discussion. What do you all think? >>> >>> Nathan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> yt-dev mailing list >>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
No, it's similar, but what I'm suggesting is that if we do that, all our bugfixes ought to probably go into the "stable" branch. Otherwise you can't get bugfixes without also getting VR.
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 10:58:46 AM Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To be clear, I'm talking about merging devel into stable, doing the 3.1 release, and then pulling the new VR into devel. Is this different from what you envision?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good, but I worry that anyone tracking devel at that point might get surprised. The way hg handles this is that they by default commit to stable, and then merge from devel during the release period. I don't know that we have that kind of discipline or rigor to our process, but it would help with things if we knew all bugfixes were already oin stable.
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 12:42:36 PM Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
I'm ok with releasing 3.1 with what's in it now and any last PRs people want to get in. Maybe the best thing would be to then pull in the new volume renderer immediately afterward with an announcement to yt-users. Then, the time between 3.1 and 3.2 can be used to shake out any remaining issues.
Britton
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out > right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards > including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module > into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard > at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff > is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff > was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for > both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas. > > Cameron > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith < > brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good to me, too. >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk < >> matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. >>> >>> Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? >>> >>> On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < >>> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >>>> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >>>> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >>>> next release. >>>> >>>> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >>>> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >>>> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >>>> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >>>> low-hanging issue triaging. >>>> >>>> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >>>> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >>>> >>>> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >>>> further discussion. What do you all think? >>>> >>>> Nathan >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> yt-dev mailing list >>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> yt-dev mailing list >>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> >> > > > -- > Cameron Hummels > Postdoctoral Researcher > Steward Observatory > University of Arizona > http://chummels.org > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request > queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might > be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the > next release. > > I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as > well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, > call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a > proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging. > > I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize > the hard work he's been putting in recently. > > Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for > further discussion. What do you all think? > > Nathan > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
My FITS one should probably wait for 3.2.
On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com mailto:chummels@gmail.com> wrote: I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org http://chummels.org/_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225 tel:631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu mailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-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
Aren't we waiting another month for 3.2?
On Monday, November 3, 2014, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
My FITS one should probably wait for 3.2.
On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');> wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuhone@gmail.com');> wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuhone@gmail.com');> wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuhone@gmail.com');> wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu');> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');> wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chummels@gmail.com');> wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brittonsmith@gmail.com');> wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');> wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. > > Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? > > On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com > javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >> next release. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as >> well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, >> call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a >> proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging. >> >> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize >> the hard work he's been putting in recently. >> >> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >> further discussion. What do you all think? >> >> Nathan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu'); *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
Sorry, 3.1 on Dec. 1. Not 3.2.
On Monday, November 3, 2014, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Aren't we waiting another month for 3.2?
On Monday, November 3, 2014, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuhone@gmail.com');> wrote:
My FITS one should probably wait for 3.2.
On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith < brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good to me, too. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. >> >> Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? >> >> On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >>> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >>> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >>> next release. >>> >>> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >>> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >>> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >>> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >>> low-hanging issue triaging. >>> >>> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >>> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >>> >>> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >>> further discussion. What do you all think? >>> >>> Nathan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> yt-dev mailing list >>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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’m happy with #1264 going in.
Douglas Rudd Scientific Computing Consultant Research Computing Center drudd@uchicago.edumailto:drudd@uchicago.edu
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.commailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.commailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.commailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.commailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.commailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale <michael.zingale@stonybrook.edumailto:michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.commailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels <chummels@gmail.commailto:chummels@gmail.com> wrote: I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.commailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.commailto:matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.commailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto: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.orghttp://chummels.org/ _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 phone: 631-632-8225tel:631-632-8225 e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edumailto:Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.orgmailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
#1253 can go, but the tests will need to be updated.
It might be a good idea to do #1281 after the release to give it some time to be used. Tests also need to be updated for this one.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Douglas Harvey Rudd drudd@uchicago.edu wrote:
I’m happy with #1264 going in.
Douglas Rudd Scientific Computing Consultant Research Computing Center drudd@uchicago.edu
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. > > Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? > > On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >> next release. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >> low-hanging issue triaging. >> >> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >> >> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >> further discussion. What do you all think? >> >> Nathan >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
Ah, great. And whoops, Dec 1, thanks Nathan.
On Mon Nov 03 2014 at 11:07:22 AM Douglas Harvey Rudd drudd@uchicago.edu wrote:
I’m happy with #1264 going in.
Douglas Rudd Scientific Computing Consultant Research Computing Center drudd@uchicago.edu
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. > > Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? > > On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >> next release. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >> low-hanging issue triaging. >> >> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >> >> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >> further discussion. What do you all think? >> >> Nathan >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
#1252 is ready, but also needs the tests to be updated.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds good to me, too.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. > > Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? > > On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < > nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >> next release. >> >> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as >> well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, >> call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a >> proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging. >> >> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize >> the hard work he's been putting in recently. >> >> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >> further discussion. What do you all think? >> >> Nathan >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
1288 is ready.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Myers atmyers2@gmail.com wrote:
#1252 is ready, but also needs the tests to be updated.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Which PRs are ready to go and should be put in before the 3.1 release? I am okay with us putting out 3.1, and then aiming for VR at 3.2.
-Matt
On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 9:56:04 AM John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
So where do we stand on 3.1?
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your reservations. Maybe we should wait for 3.2 for the VR release. It sounds like we should put it through the paces.
Any chance anyone can push the button on the equivalence and particle generator PRs? I need to narrow things down on the FITS one still.
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
We’re due for a 3.0.3 soon, so it sounds like that’s what we should do.
Should we?
I worry about releasing new features in a "bugfix" release.
Can we call the VR release yt 3.2?
I’d like to see my 3 PRs pulled in as well as Doug’s compose PR. Are there any others folks want to advocate for?
John
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Michael Zingale < michael.zingale@stonybrook.edu> wrote:
Once the new VR is pulled in, we should have a month or so of shaking out before a public release. This way we can all try our favorite scripts and give feedback, etc. We want VR to continue to work in the new release (API changes are fine). I'm happy to do what I can to test things out when the time is right.
Mike
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels chummels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm good with this. I'm personally anxious about pushing the VR out right now, because there may be some API mods as the VR goes towards including movie stuff. My concern is that if we push the new VR module into the public, people will use it and modifying the API will be very hard at that point because it will then break people's code. The movie VR stuff is something I was going to begin working on once the static frame VR stuff was more set, which is what we're working on now. I figured timeframe for both to be done was end of January, but Sam may have different ideas.
Cameron
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Britton Smith < brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good to me, too. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway. >> >> Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are? >> >> On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum < >> nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request >>> queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might >>> be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the >>> next release. >>> >>> I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs >>> as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be >>> reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This >>> will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of >>> low-hanging issue triaging. >>> >>> I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to >>> recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently. >>> >>> Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for >>> further discussion. What do you all think? >>> >>> Nathan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> yt-dev mailing list >>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> yt-dev mailing list >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > yt-dev mailing list > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org > >
-- Cameron Hummels Postdoctoral Researcher Steward Observatory University of Arizona http://chummels.org _______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Michael Zingale Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800 *phone*: 631-632-8225 *e-mail*: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu *web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale _______________________________________________ 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
If it’s possible, it’d probably be good to wait on the VR PR and on Doug Rudd’s
On Oct 28, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk matthewturk@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
Which PR of Doug's? What the issue with that one?
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, John ZuHone jzuhone@gmail.com wrote:
If it’s possible, it’d probably be good to wait on the VR PR and on Doug Rudd’s
On Oct 28, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');> wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');> wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
Sorry, this was a butt-email from an old draft I accidentally sent. Please disregard.
On Nov 5, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:
Which PR of Doug's? What the issue with that one?
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, John ZuHone <jzuhone@gmail.com mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: If it’s possible, it’d probably be good to wait on the VR PR and on Doug Rudd’s
On Oct 28, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthewturk@gmail.com');> wrote:
Sounds good to me. I think we were due anyway.
Sam, what do you think the chances of getting the VR PR landed are?
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 4:26:22 PM Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');> wrote: Hi all,
There have been a number of cool new features in the pull request queue recently. Some of these have added new features and I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that by bumping the minor version number on the next release.
I think it would be a good idea to try to integrate the open PRs as well as any that come in over the next couple of weeks that can be reviewed, call it yt 3.1 and release on or around Dec. 1. This will mean generating a proofread docs build and perhaps a few days of low-hanging issue triaging.
I'd nominate John ZuHone to send out the release email to recognize the hard work he's been putting in recently.
Just an idea, but I've tried to include specifics as a basis for further discussion. What do you all think?
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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 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 http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
participants (9)
-
Andrew Myers -
Britton Smith -
Cameron Hummels -
Douglas Harvey Rudd -
John ZuHone -
Matthew Turk -
Michael Zingale -
Nathan Goldbaum -
Sam Skillman