Editing Online Developer Meeting (2021-10-26)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
** Ask for testing the release candidate (Markus) | ** Ask for testing the release candidate (Markus) | ||
* <code>pkg test sparsersb</code> crashes Octave (only when installed to read-only directory?). | * <code>pkg test sparsersb</code> crashes Octave (only when installed to read-only directory?). | ||
** Needs further investigation | ** Needs further investigation. | ||
* Which version numbers to update in which files on (minor) release? (CITATION file?) | * Which version numbers to update in which files on (minor) release? (CITATION file?) | ||
** jwe will add rules for an automatic update. | ** jwe will add rules for an automatic update. | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
See bug report [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61370 bug #61370] and also comments 39 and 40 in [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-m-prefix-for-member-variables-in-c-classes/1517 this discourse discussion] for some motivating examples of cases where it might be simpler to expect that Octave header files will be compiled by a C++ compiler. | See bug report [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61370 bug #61370] and also comments 39 and 40 in [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-m-prefix-for-member-variables-in-c-classes/1517 this discourse discussion] for some motivating examples of cases where it might be simpler to expect that Octave header files will be compiled by a C++ compiler. | ||
* Go ahead and remove support for compiling these headers in C. jwe will go through the sources and evaluate uses of <code>#ifdef __cplusplus</code>. | ** Go ahead and remove support for compiling these headers in C. jwe will go through the sources and evaluate uses of <code>#ifdef __cplusplus</code>. | ||
=== <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows === | === <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows === | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
* Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else? | * Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else? | ||
** '''[jwe]''' We have too many different ways of starting and interacting with subprocesses (popen, popen2, system, spawn, procbuf, procstream, etc.). Is it possible to use just one C++ function to provide all the public functions we need to support? | ** '''[jwe]''' We have too many different ways of starting and interacting with subprocesses (popen, popen2, system, spawn, procbuf, procstream, etc.). Is it possible to use just one C++ function to provide all the public functions we need to support? | ||
** '''Long term:''' Get rid of the wrapper program on all platforms. That would require the new command line interface and the possibility to dynamically load the GUI (optionally). This will probably not happen before Octave 8. | ** '''Long term:''' Get rid of the wrapper program on all platforms. That would require the new command line interface and the possibility to dynamically load the GUI (optionally). This will probably not happen before Octave 8. | ||
** '''Short term:''' Test if the wrapper can be replaced with a link (or copy) of "octave-gui.exe" in MSYS2. | ** '''Short term:''' Test if the wrapper can be replaced with a link (or copy) of "octave-gui.exe" in MSYS2. | ||
=== Octave 7 === | === Octave 7 === | ||
In preparation of the next release, start preparing a list of blocking issues (from the bug tracker?). | In preparation of the next release, start preparing a list of blocking issues (from the bug tracker?). | ||
=== Paths with spaces (on Windows) === | === Paths with spaces (on Windows) === |