[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kstars-devel
Subject: Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
From: Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet () gmail ! com>
Date: 2020-11-21 9:11:27
Message-ID: jsvfl4j49dre4phig709eb2f.1605949887986 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
<html><head><style id="outgoing-font-settings">#response_container_BBPPID{font-family: initial; \
font-size:initial; color: initial;}</style></head><body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); \
background-image: initial; line-height: initial;"><div id="response_container_BBPPID" \
style="outline:none;" dir="auto" contenteditable="false"> <div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" \
dir="auto" style="width:100%;"> Thanks for this hard work Jasem!</div><div name="BB10" \
id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;"><br></div><div name="BB10" \
id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;">Yesterday evening I could pinpoint how to \
test the Focus signal issue and verify its bug fix. This week's been really hard.</div><div name="BB10" \
id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;"><br></div><div name="BB10" \
id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;">Any changes foreseen in the branching or \
integration rules after 3.5 is released? It's a bit too early to discuss maybe.</div> <div \
id="blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto"> <div id="_signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" \
name="BB10" dir="auto"><p dir="ltr">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net</p></div> \
</div></div><div id="_original_msg_header_BBPPID" dir="auto"> \
<table width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px; display: table; outline: none;" \
contenteditable="false"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="padding: initial; font-size: initial; \
text-align: initial;"> <div style="border-right: none; border-bottom: none; \
border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-top: 1pt solid rgb(181, 196, 223); padding: 3pt 0in 0in; \
font-family: Tahoma, "BB Alpha Sans", "Slate Pro"; font-size: 10pt;"> <div \
id="from"><b>De:</b> mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</div><div id="sent"><b>Envoyé:</b> 21 novembre 2020 \
10:00</div><div id="to"><b>À:</b> akarshsimha@gmail.com</div><div id="cc"><b>Cc:</b> hy@murveit.com; \
kstars-devel@kde.org; eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</div><div id="subject"><b>Objet:</b> Re: KStars v3.5.0 \
Release Date?</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> </div><!--start of _originalContent --><div \
name="BB10" dir="auto" style="background-image: initial; line-height: initial; outline: none;" \
contenteditable="false"><div dir="ltr">We'll open 3.5.1 shortly.<div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" \
class="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">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">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">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">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">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">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>> \
wrote:</div><br><div><div>Try this one:<div><a \
href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAq19iQjdqe_YJNuNCcOyWHaoyHQGxcE/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.go \
ogle.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">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:<a href="tel:16415">16.415</a> UTC WARN ][ \
default] - QObject::startTimer: Timers can \
only be used with threads started with QThread<br>[2020-11-14T02:18:<a href="tel:16443">16.443</a> 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:<a \
href="tel:16444">16.444</a> 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:<a href="tel:16485">16.485</a> 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">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">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/">astrometry.net</a> uses</div><div><br></div><div>1. Load all \
Indexes in Memory / Load all indexes in Parallel. This is the inParallel option for <a \
href="http://astrometry.net/">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/">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/">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. \
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. </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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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 <a \
href="tel:09112020">09.11.2020</a> um 22:04 schrieb Jasem Mutlaq <<a \
href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com">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">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
<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">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/">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/">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">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">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 \
<wbr><a href="http://stellarsolverprofile.cpp">stellarsolverprofile.cpp</a><wbr>. 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">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">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">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">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a \
href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a><br> > <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> -- <a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a \
href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net/">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>
<!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic