We've been working on updating our governance model for the yt-project to
help our project grow, to codify our decision-making process, and to
outline the governance structure of the project. I've submitted two
companion pull requests with drafts of this updated documentation:
(you can see the contents of the pull requests if you click on the "files
changed" tab; text highlighted in green is an addition and in red is
Our existing governance document is located at
The first pull request is to a new governance repository, where our
governance documentation will live separately from the YTEPs (yt
enhancement proposals). This will allow us to maintain and minorly update
our governance without having to update YTEP. The second pull request is to
the YTEP repository and generally outlines the core values and ideas we
want our governance structure to reflect. Hopefully all of the things I've
listed in the YTEP are reflected in the governance docs.
As members of the community, I'd like to solicit feedback from all of you
about these governance documents. Do these reflect our community values?
Should we add anything? Do you feel everything is clear? Is this too much
governance for our community right now? Is there something that's missing?
As users, do you feel our governance structure is supportive to you, or do
you think there is a way we could improve it to do so?
Feel free to reply here or comment on the pull requests! Our governance
will be better with your feedback.
Hi yt users!
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this but I was following
The example to export to RADMC3D
Number of processors: 4
Number of threads in use: 1
Reading global frequencies/wavelengths...
Reading grid file and prepare grid tree...
At line 3196 of file ./amr_module.f90 (unit = 1, file = 'amr_grid.inp')
Fortran runtime error: Bad integer for item 5 in list input
I've run examples from radmc3dpy webpage and those worked. I'm not sure if
the problem is the format in which yt writes the amr input file or radmc3d
I ran both HOP and Rockstar halo finders on the same ART simulations,
and the mass functions match very well (attached hmf_m.pdf file).
However, when I compare virial radii (attached hmf_r.pdf file), they
don't match. Even if I try rescaling the Rockstar virial radius by 1.5,
the match is much worse than for mass functions.
How are the 'virial_radius' fields defined for both halo finders?
This is a z=7 simulations, so all mass definitions are the same, Mvir =
M200m = M200c.
I also attach the script to plot virial radii if you want to check it,
although it is trivial.
Many thanks (as usual),
I am currently attempting to compare a catalog with Mvir and Rvir units of
Mpc/h and Kpc/h comoving to a catalog with Mpc and Kpc proper. I am
currently using yt version 3.5.1, which I just checked for updates.
When doing this conversion of units within yt, there appears to be a
problem where an amount of h*h is not handeled properly. I have included a
screenshot of a jupyter session that outlines the problem as well as a .py
and jupyter script so it can be tested.
The problem arises when I try to calculate delta_vir, which is the density
of a galaxy/ critical density. The correct value for both catalogs I am
comparing is around 170. When I use yt to calculate the critical density at
z = 2, it get the correct value, which I convert to Mpc*h*h//kpc/kpc/kpc to
match with my /h catalog. Then, when I divide the densities, even thought
their units are identical, their division is different than if just the
float values are divided, by an exact factor of h*h. I wonder if there is
something wrong with how I am initializing my values with the ytquantity,
or if there is something wrong going on in the code.
[image: Screen Shot 2019-07-31 at 2.36.01 PM.png]
I'm running a halo finder using fof method on some arbitrary dataset which contains positions of all particles. The halo finder shows the number of groups it has found. but when saving halo data an error came up. I have debugged the code and see positions of all halos is set to zero and virial mass and radius is set to -1. I wonder lack of what thing and particle fields leads to this?
I recently installed Anaconda3 with Python 3.7, as well as the latest yt 3.4.1. But when I ran my code, calculating the center of mass and angular momentum, an error saying:
count_values() got an unexpected keyword argument 'particle_type'
Is there anything I can do to fix it except installing an Anaconda with Python 3.6?
With the merger today of https://github.com/yt-project/yt/pull/2163 ,
Python 2 support has been removed from the yt-4 branch. Those of you
using the master branch or any release will not be affected, but if
you're on yt-4, keep this in mind.