Hi all,
Now that we're fully on github I took the opportunity today to triage our issue list. There were a number of issues that I could close immediately either because they are fixed already, were classified incorrectly as open when we imported them from bitbucket, or because there wasn't sufficient information to reproduce or understand the reported issue.
That leaves us with 97 open issues. Now we need to decide which of those 97 issues should be blockers for a 3.4 release. Currently almost all of the open issues are in a new 3.4 "milestone" we can track:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14
I've also created a bunch of labels. We can probably bikeshed about what they should be named and if we have too many:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels
I'd like to propose that we move all the issues I've marked "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels to a new 3.5 milestone. In addition, I think many of the issues marked "enhancement" can also be moved.
I think it would be worthwhile to schedule a hangout sometime in the next couple weeks to determine which issues should block a 3.4 release. Let me know if you are interested in that so we can figure out a date and time.
-Nathan
Also I should say that if I closed any issues while triaging that you think should be reopened, please do so.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Now that we're fully on github I took the opportunity today to triage our issue list. There were a number of issues that I could close immediately either because they are fixed already, were classified incorrectly as open when we imported them from bitbucket, or because there wasn't sufficient information to reproduce or understand the reported issue.
That leaves us with 97 open issues. Now we need to decide which of those 97 issues should be blockers for a 3.4 release. Currently almost all of the open issues are in a new 3.4 "milestone" we can track:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14
I've also created a bunch of labels. We can probably bikeshed about what they should be named and if we have too many:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels
I'd like to propose that we move all the issues I've marked "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels to a new 3.5 milestone. In addition, I think many of the issues marked "enhancement" can also be moved.
I think it would be worthwhile to schedule a hangout sometime in the next couple weeks to determine which issues should block a 3.4 release. Let me know if you are interested in that so we can figure out a date and time.
-Nathan
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for taking the time to look through all the issues. I agree with designating all "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels for 3.5. I also think all "enhancements" should be marked 3.5 as well. I think we should try to limit blockers to breakages or reversions so as to reduce the number of 3.4 issues to as low as possible.
I am definitely +1 on that hangout and will try to participate.
Britton
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Now that we're fully on github I took the opportunity today to triage our issue list. There were a number of issues that I could close immediately either because they are fixed already, were classified incorrectly as open when we imported them from bitbucket, or because there wasn't sufficient information to reproduce or understand the reported issue.
That leaves us with 97 open issues. Now we need to decide which of those 97 issues should be blockers for a 3.4 release. Currently almost all of the open issues are in a new 3.4 "milestone" we can track:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14
I've also created a bunch of labels. We can probably bikeshed about what they should be named and if we have too many:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels
I'd like to propose that we move all the issues I've marked "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels to a new 3.5 milestone. In addition, I think many of the issues marked "enhancement" can also be moved.
I think it would be worthwhile to schedule a hangout sometime in the next couple weeks to determine which issues should block a 3.4 release. Let me know if you are interested in that so we can figure out a date and time.
-Nathan
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Hi Nathan and Britton,
I think the work of separating the astrophysical analysis modules is relevant here. There are issues in the main yt repo that’s related to those analysis modules, for example issues related to halo analysis. Once the analysis module separation is finished, I guess the related issues would also be transferred to the new repo at https://github.com/yt-project/yt_astro_analysis https://github.com/yt-project/yt_astro_analysis. If this will happen before the 3.4 release, those issues should not be blockers.
Bili
On May 3, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for taking the time to look through all the issues. I agree with designating all "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels for 3.5. I also think all "enhancements" should be marked 3.5 as well. I think we should try to limit blockers to breakages or reversions so as to reduce the number of 3.4 issues to as low as possible.
I am definitely +1 on that hangout and will try to participate.
Britton
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343@gmail.com mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,
Now that we're fully on github I took the opportunity today to triage our issue list. There were a number of issues that I could close immediately either because they are fixed already, were classified incorrectly as open when we imported them from bitbucket, or because there wasn't sufficient information to reproduce or understand the reported issue.
That leaves us with 97 open issues. Now we need to decide which of those 97 issues should be blockers for a 3.4 release. Currently almost all of the open issues are in a new 3.4 "milestone" we can track:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14 https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14
I've also created a bunch of labels. We can probably bikeshed about what they should be named and if we have too many:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels
I'd like to propose that we move all the issues I've marked "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels to a new 3.5 milestone. In addition, I think many of the issues marked "enhancement" can also be moved.
I think it would be worthwhile to schedule a hangout sometime in the next couple weeks to determine which issues should block a 3.4 release. Let me know if you are interested in that so we can figure out a date and time.
-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 http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Hi Bili,
Ideally, I would like to have the yt_astro_analysis package up and running by the release of yt 3.4 such that the corresponding analysis modules packages can be marked as deprecated in that release. If we are able to make this happen, we should transfer the related issues from yt to yt_astro_analysis, but probably not before, just in case this doesn't get done.
Britton
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Bili Dong qobilidop@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan and Britton,
I think the work of separating the astrophysical analysis modules is relevant here. There are issues in the main yt repo that’s related to those analysis modules, for example issues related to halo analysis. Once the analysis module separation is finished, I guess the related issues would also be transferred to the new repo at https://github.com/yt- project/yt_astro_analysis. If this will happen before the 3.4 release, those issues should not be blockers.
Bili
On May 3, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Britton Smith brittonsmith@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for taking the time to look through all the issues. I agree with designating all "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels for 3.5. I also think all "enhancements" should be marked 3.5 as well. I think we should try to limit blockers to breakages or reversions so as to reduce the number of 3.4 issues to as low as possible.
I am definitely +1 on that hangout and will try to participate.
Britton
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Now that we're fully on github I took the opportunity today to triage our issue list. There were a number of issues that I could close immediately either because they are fixed already, were classified incorrectly as open when we imported them from bitbucket, or because there wasn't sufficient information to reproduce or understand the reported issue.
That leaves us with 97 open issues. Now we need to decide which of those 97 issues should be blockers for a 3.4 release. Currently almost all of the open issues are in a new 3.4 "milestone" we can track:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/milestone/14
I've also created a bunch of labels. We can probably bikeshed about what they should be named and if we have too many:
https://github.com/yt-project/yt/labels
I'd like to propose that we move all the issues I've marked "new feature", "help wanted", and "wish" labels to a new 3.5 milestone. In addition, I think many of the issues marked "enhancement" can also be moved.
I think it would be worthwhile to schedule a hangout sometime in the next couple weeks to determine which issues should block a 3.4 release. Let me know if you are interested in that so we can figure out a date and time.
-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
participants (3)
-
Bili Dong -
Britton Smith -
Nathan Goldbaum