Mailman 3 yt 3.1? - yt-dev

yt 3.1?

Nathan Goldbaum

28 Oct 2014 28 Oct '14

9:26 p.m.

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

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 915 bytes)

Show replies by date

Matthew Turk

28 Oct 28 Oct

9:26 p.m.

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 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

Britton Smith

11:48 p.m.

Sounds good to me, too. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Cameron Hummels

29 Oct 29 Oct

1:19 a.m.

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 wrote:

...

Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Matthew Turk

1:20 a.m.

Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think. On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Michael Zingale

1:45 p.m.

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 wrote:

...

Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

John ZuHone

1:47 p.m.

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 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 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 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 mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Sam Skillman

3:40 p.m.

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 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Nathan Goldbaum

5:04 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

John ZuHone

5:10 p.m.

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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 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 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 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 mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

John ZuHone

31 Oct 31 Oct

2:55 p.m.

So where do we stand on 3.1?

...

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 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 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 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 mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Britton Smith

5:42 p.m.

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 wrote:

...

So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Matthew Turk

5:51 p.m.

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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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
...
wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Britton Smith

5:58 p.m.

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 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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 > 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

Matthew Turk

6:12 p.m.

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 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 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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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

Matthew Turk

3 Nov 3 Nov

5:02 p.m.

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 wrote:

...

So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

John ZuHone

5:03 p.m.

My FITS one should probably wait for 3.2.

...

On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Matthew Turk 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 mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: So where do we stand on 3.1?

...
On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 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 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 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 mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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

Nathan Goldbaum

5:06 p.m.

Aren't we waiting another month for 3.2? On Monday, November 3, 2014, John ZuHone wrote:

...

My FITS one should probably wait for 3.2.

On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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 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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan12343@gmail.com');> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 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 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 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 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

Nathan Goldbaum

5:06 p.m.

Sorry, 3.1 on Dec. 1. Not 3.2. On Monday, November 3, 2014, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:

...

Aren't we waiting another month for 3.2?

On Monday, November 3, 2014, John ZuHone 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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 > 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

Douglas Harvey Rudd

5:07 p.m.

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 mailto: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 mailto:jzuhone@gmail.com> wrote: So where do we stand on 3.1? On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 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 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 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 mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me, too. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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 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.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.org http://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

Britton Smith

5:10 p.m.

#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 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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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
...
wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Matthew Turk

5:10 p.m.

Ah, great. And whoops, Dec 1, thanks Nathan. On Mon Nov 03 2014 at 11:07:22 AM Douglas Harvey Rudd 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 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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
...
wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Andrew Myers

6:03 p.m.

#1252 is ready, but also needs the tests to be updated. On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Turk 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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
...
wrote:

...
Sounds good to me, too.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Turk 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

Nathan Goldbaum

6:05 p.m.

1288 is ready. On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Myers wrote:

...

#1252 is ready, but also needs the tests to be updated.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Turk 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 wrote:

...
So where do we stand on 3.1?

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:10 PM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:47 AM, John ZuHone 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 wrote:

...
Well, then we shouldn't call it 3.1, I think.

On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 8:19:38 PM Cameron Hummels 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 > 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

John ZuHone

5 Nov 5 Nov

8:12 p.m.

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 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 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

Nathan Goldbaum

8:15 p.m.

Which PR of Doug's? What the issue with that one? On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, John ZuHone 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 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 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

John ZuHone

8:16 p.m.

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 mailto:nathan12343@gmail.com> wrote:

Which PR of Doug's? What the issue with that one?

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, John ZuHone 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 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 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

3458

Age (days ago)

3466

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

26 comments

9 participants

participants (9)

Andrew Myers
Britton Smith
Cameron Hummels
Douglas Harvey Rudd
John ZuHone
Matthew Turk
Michael Zingale
Nathan Goldbaum
Sam Skillman

yt 3.1?

Douglas Harvey Rudd

tags

participants (9)