[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kstars-devel
Subject: Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
From: Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja () ikarustech ! com>
Date: 2020-11-14 22:57:06
Message-ID: CAE0bU5=-A27yzK_1Mugaqre9KKyQW9hKy_6=peR8HVnENCO+Cw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Got a link to the image?
A user sent me this log:
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.415 UTC WARN ][ default] -
QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with
QThread
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.443 UTC WARN ][ default] -
QtDBus: cannot relay signals from parent
Phonon::AbstractAudioOutput(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they are emitted in the
object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is QThread(0x507d2a8
"").
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.444 UTC WARN ][ default] -
QtDBus: cannot relay signals from parent QObject(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they
are emitted in the object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is
QThread(0x507d2a8 "").
[2020-11-14T02:18:16.485 UTC WARN ][ default] -
QObject::~QObject: Timers cannot be stopped from another thread
Anyone seen anything like this? It appears to be related to Phonon playing
notification sounds and not an internal error for KStars.
--
Best Regards,
Jasem Mutlaq
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 11:02 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <
sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de> wrote:
> 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 uses
>
> 1. Load all Indexes in Memory / Load all indexes in Parallel. This is
> the inParallel option for 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 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 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> 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>:
>
> 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> 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>:
>>
>> 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> 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>:
>>>
>>> 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> 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>:
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>> 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> 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,
>>>>> > but there's quite a cleanup/followup to do there.
>>>>> > I'd say we can use issues in 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
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 à 22:38, Hy Murveit <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
>>>>> >> 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> 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)
>>>>> >>> - 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 - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > -- eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">Got a link to the image?<div><br></div><div>A user sent me this \
log:</div><div><br></div><div>[2020-11-14T02:18:16.415 UTC WARN ][ \
default] - QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with \
QThread<br>[2020-11-14T02:18:16.443 UTC WARN ][ default] - QtDBus: \
cannot relay signals from parent Phonon::AbstractAudioOutput(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they are \
emitted in the object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is QThread(0x507d2a8 \
"").<br>[2020-11-14T02:18:16.444 UTC WARN ][ default] - \
QtDBus: cannot relay signals from parent QObject(0x4cfbe30 "") unless they are emitted in the \
object's thread QThread(0xcf9258 ""). Current thread is QThread(0x507d2a8 \
"").<br>[2020-11-14T02:18:16.485 UTC WARN ][ default] - \
QObject::~QObject: Timers cannot be stopped from another thread</div><div><br></div><div>Anyone seen \
anything like this? It appears to be related to Phonon playing notification sounds and not an internal \
error for KStars.</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" \
data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Best \
Regards,<br>Jasem Mutlaq<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 11:02 PM Wolfgang \
Reissenberger <<a href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> \
wrote:<br></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;">Robert, all,<div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>I am using the following versions:</div><div>KStars: \
57c44d05c3e1f9895d84c7f4f73950975e8eddb7</div><div>StellarSolver: \
2d7eba6685c1bcd77c0525e88b3d24b2fcd474a9</div><div><br></div><div>Anything I could test right \
now?</div><div><br></div><div>Wolfgang<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 10.11.2020 um 15:50 \
schrieb Robert Lancaster <<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br><div><div style="overflow-wrap: \
break-word;"><div>Hi Wolfgang,</div><div><br></div><div>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 <a \
href="http://astrometry.net/" target="_blank">astrometry.net</a> uses</div><div><br></div><div>1. \
<span>Load all Indexes in Memory /</span> Load all indexes in Parallel. This is the inParallel option \
for <a href="http://astrometry.net/" target="_blank">astrometry.net</a>. 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 <a href="http://astrometry.net/" target="_blank">astrometry.net</a> 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. <a \
href="http://astrometry.net/" target="_blank">astrometry.net</a> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>2. Parallelization Algorithm for solving. <span> I am assuming this \
second option is what you meant in your email. </span>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. \
</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Rob</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote \
type="cite"><div>On Nov 10, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Wolfgang Reissenberger <<a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> \
wrote:</div><br><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">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><br></div><div>I need to check it under real conditions, which might \
be tricky due to the fog hanging around here…</div><div><br></div><div>Wolfgang<div><div><blockquote \
type="cite"><div>Am 10.11.2020 um 11:16 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" \
target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>>:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Alright, let's look at \
this:<div><br></div><div>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>2. WCS \
Polar Align: Can this be reproduced with simulators?</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div \
dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Best Regards,<br>Jasem \
Mutlaq<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Wolfgang \
Reissenberger <<a href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" \
target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>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><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 10.11.2020 um 08:45 \
schrieb Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">OK, well I believe it was fixed a \
week ago, so if you can still recreate it, you should report it. <div>It should be fixed before release \
if it is still freezing the Pi.</div><div><br></div><div>Hy</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div \
dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <<a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>OK, I have to check it. The problem occurred only a few days ago \
and I think I'm always on bleeding edge...<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 10.11.2020 um \
08:38 schrieb Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Wolfgang: I believe Rob and/or \
Jasem fixed the issue with parallel algorithm bringing down the RPi4 a while back.<div>I have the solver \
on auto parallelism and load all indexes in memory, and it seems to work fine (and in \
parallel).</div><div>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><br></div><div>Eric: I believe these parallel options are the defaults. Hopefully users \
won't need to configure things like this.</div><div>For star detection, I don't believe you can \
turn it off.</div><div>For star detection Jasem split the frame before detection (into at most \
num-threads parts--4 for the RPi4).</div><div>For align, I'm not sure how Rob divided \
things.</div><div><br></div><div>Hy</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <<a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi all,<div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>@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><br></div><div>Wolfgang</div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 09.11.2020 \
um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" \
target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>>:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Hello \
Folks,<div><br></div><div>So back to this topic, any major blockers to the KStars 3.5.0 release \
now?</div><div><br></div><div>1. Remote Solver should be fixed now.</div><div>2. StellarSolver Profiles \
are more optimized now.</div><div>3. Handbook not updated yet, but we can probably work on this \
shortly.</div><div>4. Couple of pending MRs to take care of.</div><div><br></div><div>How about Friday \
the 13th?</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div \
dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Best Regards,<br>Jasem \
Mutlaq<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM Robert Lancaster \
<<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br></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> <br>
Ok so then we would be changing the way we do version numbering with this, right?<br>
I believe now we typically add features in each new iteration 3.4.1, 3.4.2, etc etc<br>
and when it is really big like StellarSolver, then we make it a big release like 3.5.0<br>
<br>
With this new paradigm, we wouldn't put new features into the master of the main 3.5 branch<br>
But instead we would work on a new 3.6 branch, and then bug fixes would go into the 3.5 branch<br>
to make each new minor release, like 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc.<br>
<br>
Do I have this correct?<br>
<br>
If this is right, then it would be longer before users see new features in the main branch, but the <br>
tradeoff is that the main branch would have a LOT more stability. I see this as a big positive.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
> On Nov 4, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Eric Dejouhanet <<a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > <br>
> Hello Hy,<br>
> <br>
> Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more<br>
> bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).<br>
> So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.<br>
> <br>
> For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable<br>
> delay after the capture completes.<br>
> The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the detection.<br>
> This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an<br>
> average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.<br>
> Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2<br>
> out of 10 attempts.<br>
> But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the<br>
> problem, I won't work on it immediately).<br>
> <br>
> In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil <a href="http://bugs.kde.org/" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bugs.kde.org</a>,<br> > but there's quite a cleanup/followup to \
do there.<br> > I'd say we can use issues in <a href="http://invent.kde.org/" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">invent.kde.org</a> to discuss planned<br> > development around a forum/bugzilla issue \
or invent proposal (like<br> > agile stories).<br>
> There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think<br>
> they should be reviewed and postponed).<br>
> And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at<br>
> <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3</a><br> > <br>
> Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 Ã 22:38, Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br> >> <br>
>> Eric,<br>
>> <br>
>> I would add to your list:<br>
>> <br>
>> - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually if \
necessary) put the latest handbook online.<br> >> <br>
>> - 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> >> 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> >> <br>
>> Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: <a \
href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues</a><br> >> Is that right? Sorry \
about that--ok, after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link<br> \
>> it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are \
"nice to have someday".<br> >> A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.<br>
>> <br>
>> Hy<br>
>> <br>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <<a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> >>> <br>
>>> Hello,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.<br>
>>> - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see<br>
>>> <a href="https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941</a>)<br> >>> - Unitary \
tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to<br> >>> ~20 minutes (yeees!)<br>
>>> - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable<br>
>>> anymore from Ekos.<br>
>>> - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).<br>
>>> - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).<br>
>>> - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.<br>
>>> - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,<br>
>>> where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?<br>
>>> And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?<br>
>>> (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)<br>
>>> I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living<br>
>>> 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).<br>
>>> <br>
>>> --<br>
>>> -- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> \
- <a href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br> > <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> -- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a \
href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br> <br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic