KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

Tue Nov 10 07:06:34 GMT 2020

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 at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:rlancaste at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Hy,
> > 
> > Version 3.5.0 is only the beginning of the 3.5.x series, with more
> > bugfixes on each iteration (and possibly, only bugfixes).
> > So I have no problem leaving unresolved issues in 3.5.0.
> > 
> > For instance, the Focus module now has a slight and unforeseeable
> > delay after the capture completes.
> > The UI reflects the end of the capture only, not the end of the detection.
> > This makes the UI Focus test quite difficult to tweak, as running an
> > average of the HFR over multiple frames now has an unknown duration.
> > Right now, the test is trying to click the capture button too soon 2
> > out of 10 attempts.
> > But this won't block 3.5 in my opinion (and now that I understood the
> > problem, I won't work on it immediately).
> > 
> > In terms of reporting problems, the official way is stil bugs.kde.org <http://bugs.kde.org/>,
> > but there's quite a cleanup/followup to do there.
> > I'd say we can use issues in invent.kde.org <http://invent.kde.org/> to discuss planned
> > development around a forum/bugzilla issue or invent proposal (like
> > agile stories).
> > There are milestones associated with several issues (although I think
> > they should be reviewed and postponed).
> > And we can certainly write a punchlist: check the board at
> > https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3 <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/milestones/3>
> > 
> > Le mer. 4 nov. 2020 à 22:38, Hy Murveit <murveit at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at gmail.com>> a écrit :
> >> 
> >> Eric,
> >> 
> >> I would add to your list:
> >> 
> >> - KStars Handbook (review update sections to reflect 3.5.0) and finally (perhaps manually if necessary) put the latest handbook online.
> >> 
> >> - Review the extraction settings. I spent a bit of time looking at the default HFR settings, and based on some experimentation (truth be told, with a limited amount of data) adjust things a little differently than my first guess (which was basically focus' settings).
> >> Rob: My intuition is that I should adjust the default StellarSolver star-extraction settings for Focus and Guide as well in stellarsolverprofile.cpp. I don't know whether you've already verified them, and want to release them as they are, or whether they are a first shot and you'd welcome adjustment?
> >> 
> >> Also, Eric, I suppose I should be adding these things here: https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/issues>
> >> Is that right? Sorry about that--ok, after this thread ;) But seriously, your email is a good summary, and from that link
> >> it doesn't seem as easy to see which are "must do by 3.5.0" and which are "nice to have someday".
> >> A 3.5.0 punchlist would be a nice thing to have.
> >> 
> >> Hy
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Dejouhanet <eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hello,
> >>> 
> >>> Where do we stand now in terms of bugfixing towards 3.5.0?
> >>> 
> >>> - StellarSolver has all features in, and 1.5 is finally out at Jasem's PPA.
> >>> - However Gitlab CI still complains about that lib package (see
> >>> https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941 <https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/jobs/75941>)
> >>> - Unitary tests are being fixed progressively, mount tests are down to
> >>> ~20 minutes (yeees!)
> >>> - From my tests, the remote Astrometry INDI driver is not usable
> >>> anymore from Ekos.
> >>> - The issue raised with flat frames is confirmed fixed (at least by me).
> >>> - Meridian flip is OK (but I had not enough time to test TWO flips in a row).
> >>> - Memory leaks are still being researched in Ekos.
> >>> - There is an issue when duplicating an entry in a scheduler job,
> >>> where the sequence associated is copied from the next job.
> >>> 
> >>> Could we get a 3.6 branch where we will merge development of new features?
> >>> And master for bugfixing 3.5.x until we merge 3.6 new features in?
> >>> (we'd still have to port bugfixes from master to 3.6)
> >>> I don't think the opposite, master for 3.6 and a separate living
> >>> 3.5.x, is doable in the current configuration (build, ppas, MRs...).
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -- eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com <mailto:eric.dejouhanet at gmail.com> - https://astronomy.dejouha.net <https://astronomy.dejouha.net/>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kstars-devel/attachments/20201110/f2ff9c75/attachment.htm>