Online Developer Meeting (2021-08-24): Difference between revisions

From Octave
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Previous topics: Update from original meeting page.)
Line 17: Line 17:
* No "official" announcement happened.  Maybe reuse abandoned mailing-lists to announce important events, such as releases.
* No "official" announcement happened.  Maybe reuse abandoned mailing-lists to announce important events, such as releases.
* How do distribution maintainers get to know about Octave releases?
* How do distribution maintainers get to know about Octave releases?
** Contact Debian maintainers of the Octave package to maybe improve our communication (Kai).
** Contact Debian maintainers of the Octave package to maybe improve our communication.
*** Done, already answered: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/octave-maintainers/2021-07/msg00001.html


=== Octave 6.4 / 7 / 8 ===
=== Octave 6.4 / 7 / 8 ===
Line 37: Line 38:
** jwe will continue to work on this feature on Octave 7 (default branch)
** jwe will continue to work on this feature on Octave 7 (default branch)
** If feature cannot be completed by the end of the year, it will be disabled on parser-level (error), and introduced in Octave 8 one year later.
** If feature cannot be completed by the end of the year, it will be disabled on parser-level (error), and introduced in Octave 8 one year later.
* New GUI command widget
* [https://octave.discourse.group/t/new-command-window-widget/501? New GUI command widget]
** Possible to introduce it as user opt-in in Octave 7
** Possible to introduce it as user opt-in in Octave 7
** Pending issues:
** Pending issues:
Line 45: Line 46:
* Deprecation of Octave operators
* Deprecation of Octave operators
** Improve Matlab compatibility
** Improve Matlab compatibility
** Some extensions make it painful to implement Matlab compatible command-style function calls? (some clarification needed)
** Some extensions make it painful to implement Matlab compatible command-style function calls? See also the [https://octave.discourse.group/t/parsing-command-style-function-call-syntax/1414/7 discussion] about this topic.
*** Remove rarely used extensions like "**" power.
*** Remove rarely used extensions like "**" power.
*** Discussion about removal of "+=", "++", etc.  No final decision made.
*** Discussion about removal of "+=", "++", etc.  No final decision made.
*** Often used extensions like "!" == "~" must probably stay.
*** Often used extensions must probably stay (like "!" or "!=" used in place of "~" or "~=").


=== C++ shared pointer / liboctave ===
=== C++ shared pointer / liboctave ===
* jwe had a look at Octave own reference counting
* jwe had a look at Octave own reference counting
* Wish to replace it with C++ shared pointers
* Wish to replace it with C++ shared pointers
* Expert knowledge wanted!
* Expert knowledge wanted! jwe opened a [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-std-shared-ptr-t-to-implement-copy-on-write-objects-in-octave/1436 discussion thread]
** jwe will reach out on Discourse about the exact problems.
* jwe identified "copy expensive" inefficiency about mxArray to octave_value conversion? Root of the trouble lies in historical handling of complex data? See this [https://octave.discourse.group/t/improving-performance-of-data-transfer-to-and-from-mex-functions/1437 discussion].
* jwe identified "copy expensive" inefficiency about mxArray to octave_value conversion? (some clarification needed)
** Root of the trouble lies in historical handling of complex data?? (some clarification needed)


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 04:50, 20 August 2021

Todays topics

  • Meet and greet 5 minutes before meeting (audio testing).

Bug triaging

  • Nice contribution by an anonymous user: Short projects#Easy Closes
    • If no other topics are more urgent, let's go through some items and let's try to close at least 10 of them 😇

Previous topics

The following items were not discussed. Just some links to progress on those items are displayed.

Octave 6.3 released

Octave 6.4 / 7 / 8

  • Discussion how to continue with the development.
    • jwe wants to introduce breaking changes (see below).
  • Octave should stick with the ~yearly major release cycle
    • Probably no Octave 6.4 (only if severe bugs occur).
    • Octave 7 (default branch)
      • Should no longer receive "very" breaking changes (e.g. String-class for Octave 8)
      • Has about 305 bugs fixed (not 100% reliable figure) and should not wait another year until many bigger outstanding changes happen (will be deferred to Octave 8)
      • Tentative plan:
        • November 2021 merge default to stable.
        • End of 2021 release of Octave 7
    • Octave 8 (new default branch)
      • No clear decision how to handle very breaking changes until November 2021 merge default to stable. Depends on future needs.

Octave 7 / 8

  • Function argument parsing (introduced in Matlab R2019b, rather new)
    • jwe will continue to work on this feature on Octave 7 (default branch)
    • If feature cannot be completed by the end of the year, it will be disabled on parser-level (error), and introduced in Octave 8 one year later.
  • New GUI command widget
    • Possible to introduce it as user opt-in in Octave 7
    • Pending issues:
      • Command-widget does not look like the previous one (textbox for command input)
      • jwe needs better looking widget (avoid developing a new one)
      • No possibility to run external applications (like emacs, pager), which is already partially broken now. Need to implement own paging strategy (scroll bars, etc.)
  • Deprecation of Octave operators
    • Improve Matlab compatibility
    • Some extensions make it painful to implement Matlab compatible command-style function calls? See also the discussion about this topic.
      • Remove rarely used extensions like "**" power.
      • Discussion about removal of "+=", "++", etc. No final decision made.
      • Often used extensions must probably stay (like "!" or "!=" used in place of "~" or "~=").

C++ shared pointer / liboctave

  • jwe had a look at Octave own reference counting
  • Wish to replace it with C++ shared pointers
  • Expert knowledge wanted! jwe opened a discussion thread
  • jwe identified "copy expensive" inefficiency about mxArray to octave_value conversion? Root of the trouble lies in historical handling of complex data? See this discussion.

See also

Retrieved from "https://wiki.octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=Online_Developer_Meeting_(2021-08-24)&oldid=13885"