240
edits
Online Developer Meeting (2022-07-26): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Today's topics: Add notes from meeting
ArunGiridhar (talk | contribs) |
(→Today's topics: Add notes from meeting) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* GSoC progress | * GSoC progress | ||
** | ** Progress was presented by available mentors. Projects are on track. | ||
* VM progress | ** Openlibm project concluded that the approach doesn't work. Valuable negative result! | ||
** | ** libtiff project will probably implement the classdef as an .m file. (At least the constructor, which is hard/impossible to implement in C++ code. It is not a "normal" DLDFCN). Will probably move from dld to core (libtiff dependency). | ||
** | * When should a new function go to core or load dynamically? | ||
** ' | ** If the dependencies are already linked into Octave core -> No big benefit to have it dynamically loaded. More sensible to add in core. | ||
** If function loads a big (new) dependency, it might make sense to load it "on demand". --> dldfcn | |||
* VM progress: | |||
** Petter presented updates on his VM. Good progress. But still a lot to do. | |||
** will incrementally move from fork to default branch as an experimental feature with a configure option to disable it. ** will most likely not be active by default in Octave 8 (either not compiled or de-activated on run-time) | |||
** won't stop the option for alternative VM implementations. Might help to define an "API" for other VM implementations (like Jitter, etc). | |||
* Release process for Octave 7.2: | * Release process for Octave 7.2: | ||
** About 10 (actual) changes since the last release candidate (about 6 weeks ago). Should we make a second release candidate? | ** About 10 (actual) changes since the last release candidate (about 6 weeks ago). Should we make a second release candidate? | ||
*** No new release candidate. Proceed with a release after some final preparations (e.g., NEWS file). | |||
** Not much feedback for the first release candidate. Should we skip making release candidates entirely and directly make releases? Should we announce them more prominently (e.g., on the web page)? | ** Not much feedback for the first release candidate. Should we skip making release candidates entirely and directly make releases? Should we announce them more prominently (e.g., on the web page)? | ||
* | *** Call for ideas. | ||
** | |||
* Octave packages progress update | * Octave packages progress update | ||
* Managing diversity of libraries (libm, libc etc) | * Managing diversity of libraries (libm, libc etc) | ||