<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%;">I really want CI to run successfully before the release. I had no time to check the libstellarsolver packaging yet, and I have a nice escalation of crashes when a CCD driver disconnects that I am fixing.</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%;">Also my comment about star profiles multiplying and not being in a pool known to the end-user didn't get that much traction, and it's still worrying to me. </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%;">Apart from that and the leak, tests were quite memorable last week. It had been long since I accepted to leave the obs to run unattended, which means much to me! </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%;">Diwali could be a nice target, but remember people burn stuff and crack fireworks on that date too :) </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> 9 novembre 2020 22:04</div><div id="to"><b>À:</b> rlancaste@gmail.com</div><div id="cc"><b>Cc:</b> eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com; kstars-devel@kde.org; hy@murveit.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">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" 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 Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:41 AM 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">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">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 à 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>
<!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>