Online Developer Meeting (2024-10-22): Difference between revisions

From Octave
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Today's topics: Add some topics (releases 9.3.0 and 10))
(→‎Today's topics: Improve CI for mkoctfile?)
Line 11: Line 11:
** Update gnulib
** Update gnulib
** Pending changes?
** Pending changes?
* To improve coverage for mkoctfile, should we include building some Octave packages in CI? (Maybe, the "stk" package because it builds .mex files, and the "control" package because it builds .oct files with C++ and Fortran?)
** Also run tests for these packages in CI?
** Fix version? Or always latest version from package index?


== Previous topics ==
== Previous topics ==

Revision as of 07:38, 22 October 2024

Today's topics

  • Octave 9.3.0:
    • Ready for release?
  • Start process for Octave 10:
    • Merge default to stable (when?)
    • Update gnulib
    • Pending changes?
  • To improve coverage for mkoctfile, should we include building some Octave packages in CI? (Maybe, the "stk" package because it builds .mex files, and the "control" package because it builds .oct files with C++ and Fortran?)
    • Also run tests for these packages in CI?
    • Fix version? Or always latest version from package index?

Previous topics

  • GSoC:
    • The projects that Andreas mentored successfully finished.
    • No information on the project that Colin mentored during the meeting.
  • Plans for Octave 9.3.0:
    • Target for merging the default branch to the stable branch in 6-8 weeks.
    • Postpone decision about releasing 9.3.0 for a few more weeks.
  • Targets for Octave 10:
    • Given the remaining time until the branches are merged, implementing Table or String classes for Octave 10 might not be reasonable.
    • Implementing the arguments block might also be too large.
    • Maybe, go ahead and merge the changes for the command window widget from here: https://octave.discourse.group/t/new-command-window-widget/501/82 (or the modified version from the following comment)
  • Thoughts about liboctmex:
    • Go ahead and apply for Octave 10
    • Maybe consider versioned symbols instead of bumping the SOVERSION for ABI/API breaking changes in the future?
  • Visibility attributes:
    • Many (member) functions are marked (as opposed to the entire class) to allow for inline definitions of (member) functions in headers.
    • Might still be incomplete (probably less complete in liboctinterp than in liboctave)
  • Virtual OctConf. Is it happening?

See also

Retrieved from "https://wiki.octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=Online_Developer_Meeting_(2024-10-22)&oldid=15236"