KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?

Tue Nov 10 07:47:29 GMT 2020

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 at 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 at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:murveit at 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 at openfuture.de <mailto:sterne-jaeger at 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 at ikarustech.com <mailto: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/20201110/0469d04e/attachment-0001.htm>