[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: 2020-11-21 8:59:53
Message-ID: CAE0bU5mCsdMXG+t7zAkbLZhJXmyVuApBgzp6KD7qReuoqEyoMA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
We'll open 3.5.1 shortly.
--
Best Regards,
Jasem Mutlaq
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 5:22 AM Akarsh Simha <akarshsimha@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just became free from work for a few days and I thought I'd try to get
> my MRs in for 3.5.0. Looks like I missed the tag :-)
>
> Regards
> Akarsh
>
>
> Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 18:18 Uhr schrieb Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *> git logcommit bed10ad934e8b60c36da5a3bfeaa8c8e8284e384 (HEAD ->
>> master, upstream/master)Author: Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com
>> <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com>>Date: Sat Nov 21 02:49:47 2020 +0300 Marking
>> stable release for 3.5.0*
>>
>>
>> Woohoo! Congratulations!!
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 9:04 PM Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jasem,
>>>
>>> Build is broken.
>>>
>>> To get things to compile I needed to comment out:
>>> lines 46, 48 859, 864 of align.h
>>> These are related to your recent commits.
>>>
>>> Hy
>>>
>>> PS IMHO it's better to remove all those lines you commented out in the
>>> recent commits.
>>> You can always retrieve them in git.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 7:46 PM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or did you say the solve succeeded with whatever profile you used?
>>>> Sorry this email thread is missing part of the message and I may have
>>>> misinterpreted it. Maybe this image was in response to your message about
>>>> the parallel solvers not shutting down that I already responded to?
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2020, at 10:43 PM, Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wolfgang, I tried solving this image with my Small Scale Solving
>>>> profile and it failed. I noticed that your stars are fairly small and it
>>>> was downsampling by 3. So I tried turning off downsampling entirely and
>>>> it succeeded in about 3 seconds. If you are having trouble with failed
>>>> solves, you can try disabling the auto downsample function and try 1 or 2
>>>> for the downsample.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2020, at 6:44 PM, Wolfgang Reissenberger <
>>>> sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Try this one:
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAq19iQjdqe_YJNuNCcOyWHaoyHQGxcE/view?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 14.11.2020 um 23:57 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com>:
>>>>
>>>> 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 Ã 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">We'll open 3.5.1 shortly.<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 21, 2020 at 5:22 AM Akarsh Simha <<a \
href="mailto:akarshsimha@gmail.com">akarshsimha@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"><div dir="ltr"><div>I just became free from work for a few days and I \
thought I'd try to get my MRs in for 3.5.0. Looks like I missed the tag \
:-)</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>Akarsh</div><div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 18:18 Uhr schrieb Hy \
Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>>:<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 dir="ltr"><blockquote \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:medium none;padding:0px"><i>> git log<br>commit \
bed10ad934e8b60c36da5a3bfeaa8c8e8284e384 (HEAD -> master, upstream/master)<br>Author: Jasem Mutlaq \
<<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>><br>Date: \
Sat Nov 21 02:49:47 2020 +0300<br> Marking stable release for \
3.5.0</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Woohoo! Congratulations!!</div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 9:04 PM Hy Murveit <<a \
href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" target="_blank">murveit@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"><div dir="ltr"><div>Jasem,</div><div><br></div><div>Build is \
broken.</div><div><br></div><div>To get things to compile I needed to comment out:</div><div> lines \
46, 48 859, 864 of align.h<br></div><div>These are related to your recent \
commits.</div><div><br></div><div>Hy</div><div><br></div><div>PS IMHO it's better to remove all those \
lines you commented out in the recent commits.</div><div>You can always retrieve them in \
git.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at \
7:46 PM 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"><div>Or did you \
say the solve succeeded with whatever profile you used? Sorry this email thread is missing part of the \
message and I may have misinterpreted it. Maybe this image was in response to your message about the \
parallel solvers not shutting down that I already responded to?<br><div><br><blockquote \
type="cite"><div>On Nov 14, 2020, at 10:43 PM, Robert Lancaster <<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div>Hi Wolfgang, I tried solving this \
image with my Small Scale Solving profile and it failed. I noticed that your stars are fairly small and \
it was downsampling by 3. So I tried turning off downsampling entirely and it succeeded in about 3 \
seconds. If you are having trouble with failed solves, you can try disabling the auto downsample \
function and try 1 or 2 for the downsample. <br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 14, 2020, \
at 6:44 PM, Wolfgang Reissenberger <<a href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" \
target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div><span>Try this \
one:</span><div><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAq19iQjdqe_YJNuNCcOyWHaoyHQGxcE/view?usp=sharing" \
target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAq19iQjdqe_YJNuNCcOyWHaoyHQGxcE/view?usp=sharing</a></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote \
type="cite"><div>Am 14.11.2020 um 23:57 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" \
target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>>:</div><br><div><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"><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" \
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>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><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>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>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic