[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kstars-devel
Subject:    Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
From:       Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger () openfuture ! de>
Date:       2020-11-14 20:01:57
Message-ID: C2F11C0C-94F2-4CD6-8A97-BD4EF02441DD () openfuture ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Robert, all,
I had the issue again when trying to solve a wide field image around NGC6888, which contains very dense \
star fields. I am using the 1-Default profile without any change.

If I leave the „Parallel Algorithm" option from the Astrometry Parameters on „Auto", Kstars solves \
the image very fast, but remains on 100%. It seems that the in parallel running threads were hanging.

I am using the following versions:
KStars: 57c44d05c3e1f9895d84c7f4f73950975e8eddb7
StellarSolver: 2d7eba6685c1bcd77c0525e88b3d24b2fcd474a9

Anything I could test right now?

Wolfgang

> Am 10.11.2020 um 15:50 schrieb Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> So I just want to clarify something you said here, there are a couple of parallel things and that can \
> be a little confusing, so I just want to make sure we are talking about the same things.  The cause of \
> the confusion is the terminology that astrometry.net <http://astrometry.net/> uses 
> 1. Load all Indexes in Memory / Load all indexes in Parallel.  This is the inParallel option for \
> astrometry.net <http://astrometry.net/>.   In the options I tried to call this "Load all Indexes in \
> Memory" to attempt to avoid the confusion with the Parallel Algorithm.  This has nothing to do with \
> parallelization in different threads or processors.  It has to do with memory management.  The \
> astrometry.net <http://astrometry.net/> solver can load the indexes and search them one after the \
> other, or it can try to load all the indexes at once and then solve.  The second option is much much \
> faster, but comes with risk.  astrometry.net <http://astrometry.net/> does NOT check to see if it has \
> enough RAM before it tries to solve,  They have big warnings in the documentation about using this \
> option.  If you don't have enough RAM, it could use all the RAM and crash. 
> I programmed StellarSolver to check the available RAM prior to starting the solve.  If there is not \
> enough RAM, it is supposed to turn off the option.  The user can also disable the option entirely, so \
> that there is never a problem.  But you really do want the option turned on if your system can handle \
> it.  We had some issues earlier about the RAM calculation.  I think the "inParallel" option causes the \
> greatest crash risk.  I would really like it if somebody could look over the code for determining \
> enough RAM and see if it is good now.  One thought that I have is that we can make the calculation more \
> conservative and we could change the option to have 3 choices, Auto, on, or off.  So that if a user is \
> really brave, or convinced they have enough RAM for sure, they could turn the option on regardless of \
> the risk, If they are risk averse, they could turn it off, but most users could just leave it on auto.  \
> What do you think? 
> 2. Parallelization Algorithm for solving.   I am assuming this second option is what you meant in your \
> email.  This one is entirely of my creation and is what makes StellarSolver stellar.  Modern computers \
> really have great capacity for computing in parallel and it causes a HUGE performance boost to use this \
> capability, even on a Pi, since the PI has 4 processors.  
> I programmed StellarSolver to have 2 different parallel algorithms, one that solves simultaneously at \
> multiple "depths" and one that solves simultaneously at different scales.  If you set it to Auto, it \
> will select the appropriate one based on whether you specified the scale or position (or neither).  If \
> the image has both scale AND position, it does NOT solve in parallel and goes back to solving with a \
> single thread. 
> When Jasem wanted to me to de-thread the StellarSolver and make it so that just the solvers are \
> threads, I had to make a bunch of changes and one change I forgot was to make the star extraction \
> before parallel solving asynchronous.  That does mean that when doing a parallel solve, it might look \
> like things have frozen for a moment during the star extraction before the threads start up.  I have \
> already fixed this, but it is in the releaseExperiment branch of StellarSolver, not in Master.  I would \
> like to get this fix integrated before we release, but I will need to test this thoroughly first as I \
> mentioned in a previous email.  I am wondering if this freezing behavior was what caused the "crash" \
> you observed? 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> > On Nov 10, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de \
> > <mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de>> wrote: 
> > OK, I did a quick check on my RPi4 with Parallel Algorithm set to „Auto" - and it works super fast! \
> > But since it is daytime, I can only test the „Load and Slew" option. So maybe the WCS info in the \
> > file gave hints that are not present for normal capture and slew or sync. 
> > I need to check it under real conditions, which might be tricky due to the fog hanging around here…
> > 
> > Wolfgang
> > > Am 10.11.2020 um 11:16 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com \
> > > <mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com>>: 
> > > Alright, let's look at this:
> > > 
> > > 1. Parallel algorithm: This is related to SOLVER, not image partitioning. It should work fine on \
> > > Rpi4 and the checks are more reliable now as Robert worked on that. 2. WCS Polar Align: Can this be \
> > > reproduced with simulators? 
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Jasem Mutlaq
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de \
> > > <mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de>> wrote: It wasn't that bad. The problem was that KStars went \
> > > to 100% CPU usage and died (or I killed it, do not exactly remember). I'll try to reproduce it... 
> > > > Am 10.11.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com <mailto:murveit@gmail.com>>:
> > > > 
> > > > OK, well I believe it was fixed a week ago, so if you can still recreate it, you should report \
> > > > it.  It should be fixed before release if it is still freezing the Pi.
> > > > 
> > > > Hy
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de \
> > > > <mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de>> wrote: OK, I have to check it. The problem occurred only a \
> > > > few days ago and I think I'm always on bleeding edge... 
> > > > > Am 10.11.2020 um 08:38 schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com <mailto:murveit@gmail.com>>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Wolfgang: I believe Rob and/or Jasem fixed the issue with parallel algorithm bringing down the \
> > > > > RPi4 a while back. I have the solver on auto parallelism and load all indexes in memory, and it \
> > > > > seems to work fine (and in parallel). Similarly, for star extraction, Jasem implemented a \
> > > > > threaded extraction that also automatically determines how many threads to use and seems fine \
> > > > > on the RPi4. 
> > > > > Eric: I believe these parallel options are the defaults. Hopefully users won't need to \
> > > > > configure things like this. For star detection, I don't believe you can turn it off.
> > > > > For star detection Jasem split the frame before detection (into at most num-threads parts--4 \
> > > > > for the RPi4). For align, I'm not sure how Rob divided things.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hy
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de \
> > > > > <mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de>> wrote: Hi all,
> > > > > I think we are close to finishing the release. I personally would opt to wait for another week \
> > > > > and keep an eye stability. 
> > > > > Maybe we should take another look if the default settings in the StellarSolver profiles work a) \
> > > > > for typical camera/scope combinations and b) for all platforms. 
> > > > > For example with my RPi, I needed to change the Parallel Algorithm to „None" because \
> > > > > parallelity brought KStars down. Is the default setting „None" and I changed it somewhen? \
> > > > > With all the new parameters I would prefer having a robust setup and leave it to the user to \
> > > > > optimize speed. 
> > > > > @Jasem: please take a closer look to MR!122, since it fixed 4(!) regressions I introduced with \
> > > > > my capture counting fix MR!114. Hopefully now we have at least a proper coverage with automated \
> > > > > tests... 
> > > > > Wolfgang
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Am 09.11.2020 um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com \
> > > > > > <mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com>>: 
> > > > > > Hello Folks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So back to this topic, any major blockers to the KStars 3.5.0 release now?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. Remote Solver should be fixed now.
> > > > > > 2. StellarSolver Profiles are more optimized now.
> > > > > > 3. Handbook not updated yet, but we can probably work on this shortly.
> > > > > > 4. Couple of pending MRs to take care of.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How about Friday the 13th?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Jasem Mutlaq
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com \
> > > > > > <mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Eric,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok so then we would be changing the way we do version numbering with this, right?
> > > > > > I believe now we typically add features in each new iteration 3.4.1, 3.4.2, etc etc
> > > > > > and when it is really big like StellarSolver, then we make it a big release like 3.5.0
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With this new paradigm, we wouldn't put new features into the master of the main 3.5 branch
> > > > > > But instead we would work on a new 3.6 branch, and then bug fixes would go into the 3.5 \
> > > > > > branch to make each new minor release, like 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do I have this correct?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If this is right, then it would be longer before users see new features in the main branch, \
> > > > > > but the  tradeoff is that the main branch would have a LOT more stability.  I see this as a \
> > > > > > big positive. 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com \
> > > > > > > <mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com>> wrote: 
> > > > > > > Hello Hy,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more
> > > > > > > bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).
> > > > > > > So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable
> > > > > > > delay after the capture completes.
> > > > > > > The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the detection.
> > > > > > > This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an
> > > > > > > average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.
> > > > > > > Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2
> > > > > > > out of 10 attempts.
> > > > > > > But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the
> > > > > > > problem, I won't work on it immediately).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil bugs.kde.org \
> > > > > > > <http://bugs.kde.org/>, but there's quite a cleanup/followup to do there.
> > > > > > > I'd say we can use issues in invent.kde.org <http://invent.kde.org/> to discuss planned
> > > > > > > development around a forum/bugzilla issue or invent proposal (like
> > > > > > > agile stories).
> > > > > > > There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think
> > > > > > > they should be reviewed and postponed).
> > > > > > > And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at
> > > > > > > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3 \
> > > > > > > <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3> 
> > > > > > > Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 Ã  22:38, Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com <mailto:murveit@gmail.com>> a \
> > > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Eric,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I would add to your list:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually \
> > > > > > > > if necessary) put the latest handbook online. 
> > > > > > > > - Review the extraction settings. I spent a bit of time looking at the default HFR \
> > > > > > > > settings, and based on some experimentation (truth be told, with a limited amount of \
> > > > > > > > data) adjust things a little differently than my first guess (which was basically focus' \
> > > > > > > >                 settings).
> > > > > > > > Rob: My intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver star-extraction \
> > > > > > > > settings for Focus and Guide as well in stellarsolverprofile.cpp. I don't know whether \
> > > > > > > > you've already verified them, and want to release them as they are, or whether they are a \
> > > > > > > > first shot and you'd welcome adjustment? 
> > > > > > > > Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: \
> > > > > > > > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues \
> > > > > > > > <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues> Is that right? Sorry about that--ok, \
> > > > > > > > after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link it \
> > > > > > > > doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are "nice to have \
> > > > > > > > someday". A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hy
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com \
> > > > > > > > <mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.
> > > > > > > > > - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see
> > > > > > > > > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941 \
> > > > > > > > >                 <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941>)
> > > > > > > > > - Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to
> > > > > > > > > ~20 minutes (yeees!)
> > > > > > > > > - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable
> > > > > > > > > anymore from Ekos.
> > > > > > > > > - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).
> > > > > > > > > - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).
> > > > > > > > > - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.
> > > > > > > > > - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,
> > > > > > > > > where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?
> > > > > > > > > And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?
> > > > > > > > > (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)
> > > > > > > > > I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living
> > > > > > > > > 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > -- eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com> - \
> > > > > > > > > https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > -- eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com> - \
> > > > > > > https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 


[Attachment #3 (unknown)]

<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body \
style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Robert, \
all,<div class="">I had the issue again when trying to solve a wide field image around NGC6888, which \
contains very dense star fields. I am using the 1-Default profile without any change.</div><div \
class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If I leave the „Parallel Algorithm" option from the \
Astrometry Parameters on „Auto", Kstars solves the image very fast, but remains on 100%. It seems that \
the in parallel running threads were hanging.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am \
using the following versions:</div><div \
class="">KStars:&nbsp;57c44d05c3e1f9895d84c7f4f73950975e8eddb7</div><div \
class="">StellarSolver:&nbsp;2d7eba6685c1bcd77c0525e88b3d24b2fcd474a9</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">Anything I could test right now?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">Wolfgang<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am \
10.11.2020 um 15:50 schrieb Robert Lancaster &lt;<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" \
class="">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>&gt;:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta \
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; \
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Wolfgang,</div><div \
class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So I just want to clarify something you said here, there are a \
couple of parallel things and that can be a little confusing, so I just want to make sure we are talking \
about the same things. &nbsp;The cause of the confusion is the terminology that <a \
href="http://astrometry.net/" class="">astrometry.net</a>&nbsp;uses</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">1.&nbsp;<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">Load all Indexes \
in Memory /</span>&nbsp;Load all indexes in Parallel. &nbsp;This is the inParallel option for <a \
href="http://astrometry.net/" class="">astrometry.net</a>. &nbsp; In the options I tried to call this \
"Load all Indexes in Memory" to attempt to avoid the confusion with the Parallel Algorithm. &nbsp;This \
has nothing to do with parallelization in different threads or processors. &nbsp;It has to do with memory \
management. &nbsp;The <a href="http://astrometry.net/" class="">astrometry.net</a>&nbsp;solver can load \
the indexes and search them one after the other, or it can try to load all the indexes at once and then \
solve. &nbsp;The second option is much much faster, but comes with risk. &nbsp;<a \
href="http://astrometry.net/" class="">astrometry.net</a>&nbsp;does NOT check to see if it has enough RAM \
before it tries to solve, &nbsp;They have big warnings in the documentation about using this option. \
&nbsp;If you don't have enough RAM, it could use all the RAM and crash.</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">I programmed StellarSolver to check the available RAM prior to starting the \
solve. &nbsp;If there is not enough RAM, it is supposed to turn off the option. &nbsp;The user can also \
disable the option entirely, so that there is never a problem. &nbsp;But you really do want the option \
turned on if your system can handle it. &nbsp;We had some issues earlier about the RAM calculation. \
&nbsp;I think the "inParallel" option causes the greatest crash risk. &nbsp;I would really like it if \
somebody could look over the code for determining enough RAM and see if it is good now. &nbsp;One thought \
that I have is that we can make the calculation more conservative and we could change the option to have \
3 choices, Auto, on, or off. &nbsp;So that if a user is really brave, or convinced they have enough RAM \
for sure, they could turn the option on regardless of the risk, If they are risk averse, they could turn \
it off, but most users could just leave it on auto. &nbsp;What do you think?</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">2. Parallelization Algorithm for solving. &nbsp;<span style="caret-color: \
rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">&nbsp;I am assuming this second option is what you meant in your email. \
&nbsp;</span>This one is entirely of my creation and is what makes StellarSolver stellar. &nbsp;Modern \
computers really have great capacity for computing in parallel and it causes a HUGE performance boost to \
use this capability, even on a Pi, since the PI has 4 processors.&nbsp;</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">I programmed StellarSolver to have 2 different parallel algorithms, one that \
solves simultaneously at multiple "depths" and one that solves simultaneously at different scales. \
&nbsp;If you set it to Auto, it will select the appropriate one based on whether you specified the scale \
or position (or neither). &nbsp;If the image has both scale AND position, it does NOT solve in parallel \
and goes back to solving with a single thread.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When \
Jasem wanted to me to de-thread the StellarSolver and make it so that just the solvers are threads, I had \
to make a bunch of changes and one change I forgot was to make the star extraction before parallel \
solving asynchronous. &nbsp;That does mean that when doing a parallel solve, it might look like things \
have frozen for a moment during the star extraction before the threads start up. &nbsp;I have already \
fixed this, but it is in the releaseExperiment branch of StellarSolver, not in Master. &nbsp;I would like \
to get this fix integrated before we release, but I will need to test this thoroughly first as I \
mentioned in a previous email. &nbsp;I am wondering if this freezing behavior was what caused the "crash" \
you observed?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">Rob</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 10, 2020, at 8:03 AM, \
Wolfgang Reissenberger &lt;<a href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" \
class="">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div \
class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div \
style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">OK, I \
did a quick check on my RPi4 with Parallel Algorithm set to „Auto" - and it works super fast! But since \
it is daytime, I can only test the „Load and Slew" option. So maybe the WCS info in the file gave hints \
that are not present for normal capture and slew or sync.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I \
need to check it under real conditions, which might be tricky due to the fog hanging around \
here…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Wolfgang<div class=""><div \
class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 10.11.2020 um 11:16 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq \
&lt;<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" class="">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>&gt;:</div><br \
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Alright, let's look at this:<div \
class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. Parallel algorithm: This is related to SOLVER, not image \
partitioning. It should work fine on Rpi4 and the checks are more reliable now as Robert worked on \
that.</div><div class="">2. WCS Polar Align: Can this be reproduced with simulators?</div><div \
class=""><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" \
data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div \
class="">--</div><div class="">Best Regards,<br class="">Jasem Mutlaq<br class=""></div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Wolfgang \
Reissenberger &lt;<a href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" \
class="">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class="">It wasn't that bad. The problem was that KStars went to 100% \
CPU usage and died (or I killed it, do not exactly remember). I'll try to reproduce it...<br \
class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 10.11.2020 um 08:45 \
schrieb Hy Murveit &lt;<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" target="_blank" \
class="">murveit@gmail.com</a>&gt;:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">OK, well I \
believe it was fixed a week ago, so if you can still recreate it, you should report it.&nbsp;<div \
class="">It should be fixed before release if it is still freezing the Pi.</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">Hy</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger &lt;<a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank" class="">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>&gt; \
wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px \
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="">OK, I have to check it. The problem occurred only \
a few days ago and I think I'm always on bleeding edge...<br class=""><div class=""><br \
class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 10.11.2020 um 08:38 schrieb Hy Murveit &lt;<a \
href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">murveit@gmail.com</a>&gt;:</div><br \
class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Wolfgang: I believe Rob and/or Jasem fixed the issue with \
parallel algorithm bringing down the RPi4 a while back.<div class="">I have the solver on auto \
parallelism and load all indexes in memory, and it seems to work fine (and in parallel).</div><div \
class="">Similarly, for star extraction, Jasem implemented a threaded extraction that also automatically \
determines how many threads to use and seems fine on the RPi4.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">Eric: I believe these parallel options are the defaults. Hopefully users won't need to configure \
things like this.</div><div class="">For star detection, I don't believe you can turn it off.</div><div \
class="">For star detection Jasem split the frame before detection (into at most num-threads parts--4 for \
the RPi4).</div><div class="">For align, I'm not sure how Rob divided things.</div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div><div class="">Hy</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger &lt;<a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank" class="">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>&gt; \
wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px \
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="">Hi all,<div class="">I think we are close to \
finishing the release. I personally would opt to wait for another week and keep an eye \
stability.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe we should take another look if the \
default settings in the StellarSolver profiles work a) for typical camera/scope combinations and b) for \
all platforms.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For example with my RPi, I needed to \
change the Parallel Algorithm to „None" because parallelity brought KStars down. Is the default setting \
„None" and I changed it somewhen? With all the new parameters I would prefer having a robust setup and \
leave it to the user to optimize speed.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">@Jasem: \
please take a closer look to MR!122, since it fixed 4(!) regressions I introduced with my capture \
counting fix MR!114. Hopefully now we have at least a proper coverage with automated tests...</div><div \
class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Wolfgang</div><div class=""><div class=""><br \
class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 09.11.2020 um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq \
&lt;<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" target="_blank" \
class="">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>&gt;:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hello \
Folks,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So back to this topic, any major blockers to the \
KStars 3.5.0 release now?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. Remote Solver should be \
fixed now.</div><div class="">2. StellarSolver Profiles are more optimized now.</div><div class="">3. \
Handbook not updated yet, but we can probably work on this shortly.</div><div class="">4. Couple&nbsp;of \
pending MRs to take care of.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">How about Friday the \
13th?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div \
dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">--</div><div class="">Best \
Regards,<br class="">Jasem Mutlaq<br class=""></div><div class=""><br \
class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM Robert Lancaster \
&lt;<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br \
class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Eric,<br class=""> <br class="">
Ok so then we would be changing the way we do version numbering with this, right?<br class="">
I believe now we typically add features in each new iteration 3.4.1, 3.4.2, etc etc<br class="">
and when it is really big like StellarSolver, then we make it a big release like 3.5.0<br class="">
<br class="">
With this new paradigm, we wouldn't put new features into the master of the main 3.5 branch<br class="">
But instead we would work on a new 3.6 branch, and then bug fixes would go into the 3.5 branch<br \
class=""> to make each new minor release, like 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc.<br class="">
<br class="">
Do I have this correct?<br class="">
<br class="">
If this is right, then it would be longer before users see new features in the main branch, but the <br \
class=""> tradeoff is that the main branch would have a LOT more stability.&nbsp; I see this as a big \
positive.<br class=""> <br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
<br class="">
Rob<br class="">
<br class="">
&gt; On Nov 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Eric Dejouhanet &lt;<a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank" class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br class=""> &gt; <br class="">
&gt; Hello Hy,<br class="">
&gt; <br class="">
&gt; Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more<br class="">
&gt; bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).<br class="">
&gt; So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.<br class="">
&gt; <br class="">
&gt; For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable<br class="">
&gt; delay after the capture completes.<br class="">
&gt; The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the detection.<br class="">
&gt; This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an<br class="">
&gt; average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.<br class="">
&gt; Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2<br class="">
&gt; out of 10 attempts.<br class="">
&gt; But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the<br class="">
&gt; problem, I won't work on it immediately).<br class="">
&gt; <br class="">
&gt; In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil <a href="http://bugs.kde.org/" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">bugs.kde.org</a>,<br class=""> &gt; but there's quite a \
cleanup/followup to do there.<br class=""> &gt; I'd say we can use issues in <a \
href="http://invent.kde.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">invent.kde.org</a> to discuss \
planned<br class=""> &gt; development around a forum/bugzilla issue or invent proposal (like<br class="">
&gt; agile stories).<br class="">
&gt; There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think<br class="">
&gt; they should be reviewed and postponed).<br class="">
&gt; And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at<br class="">
&gt; <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" \
class="">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3</a><br class=""> &gt; <br class="">
&gt; Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 Ã  22:38, Hy Murveit &lt;<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" target="_blank" \
class="">murveit@gmail.com</a>&gt; a écrit :<br class=""> &gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; Eric,<br class="">
&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; I would add to your list:<br class="">
&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually if \
necessary) put the latest handbook online.<br class=""> &gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; - Review the extraction settings. I spent a bit of time looking at the default HFR settings, and \
based on some experimentation (truth be told, with a limited amount of data) adjust things a little \
differently than my first guess (which was basically focus' settings).<br class=""> &gt;&gt; Rob: My \
intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver star-extraction settings for Focus and Guide \
as well in stellarsolverprofile.cpp. I don't know whether you've already verified them, and want to \
release them as they are, or whether they are a first shot and you'd welcome adjustment?<br class=""> \
&gt;&gt; <br class=""> &gt;&gt; Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: <a \
href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" \
class="">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues</a><br class=""> &gt;&gt; Is that right? Sorry \
about that--ok, after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link<br \
class=""> &gt;&gt; it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are "nice to \
have someday".<br class=""> &gt;&gt; A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.<br class="">
&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; Hy<br class="">
&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt; On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet &lt;<a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank" class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br class=""> &gt;&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; Hello,<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank" class="">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941</a>)<br class=""> \
&gt;&gt;&gt; - Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to<br class=""> \
&gt;&gt;&gt; ~20 minutes (yeees!)<br class=""> &gt;&gt;&gt; - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI \
driver is not usable<br class=""> &gt;&gt;&gt; anymore from Ekos.<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; <br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; --<br class="">
&gt;&gt;&gt; -- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank" \
class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank" class="">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br class=""> &gt; <br class="">
&gt; <br class="">
&gt; <br class="">
&gt; -- <br class="">
&gt; -- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> \
- <a href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" \
class="">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br class=""> <br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br \
class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic