Hi All,

So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:

1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
for release.
4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
hasn't replaced anything yet

Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.

Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.

What is 1 about? 

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
> 
> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
> for release.
> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
> hasn't replaced anything yet
> 
> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
> 
> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
> 

This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> What is 1 about?
>
> Victor Lazzarini
> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
> Maynooth University
> Ireland
>
>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
>>
>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>> for release.
>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>
>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>
>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>

And I suppose we should add the quoted strings issue Thorin posted
about on the user list for 6.10.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>  wrote:
>> What is 1 about?
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
>>>
>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>> for release.
>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>
>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>
>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>

Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
> 
> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>  wrote:
>> What is 1 about?
>> 
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>> 
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
>>> 
>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>> for release.
>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>> 
>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>> 
>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>> 

Lots of people reported crashing. I wrote about it in length already on the user list so won't repeat it again here.

Lots of people reported crashing. I wrote about it in length already on the user list so won't repeat it again here.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 16:30 Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@mu.ie> wrote:

Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi <stevenyi@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
> <Victor.Lazzarini@mu.ie> wrote:
>> What is 1 about?
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi <stevenyi@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
>>>
>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>> for release.
>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>
>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>
>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>
>>> steven

 Hi,

I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to test.

Complete silence so far.

Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to put their time into testing and later are unhappy...

Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must confirm that it works for them.

Tarmo

12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini" <Victor.Lazzarini@mu.ie>:

Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi <stevenyi@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
> <Victor.Lazzarini@mu.ie> wrote:
>> What is 1 about?
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi <stevenyi@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user list that:
>>>
>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>> for release.
>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>
>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>
>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>
>>> steven

I feel like I'm just repeating what I wrote on the other list, but
anyways, people at the conference reported it crashing on all
platforms (including OSX) in various ways.  Nothing definitive, just
stories like "I was using it to teach x and it crashed", or it crashed
for a student and now they think "Csound is horrible because it
crashes".

On Windows, there's an added issue of different builds now, as the
Appveyor build is currently setup to build CsoundQT itself. The Visual
Studio build is not compatible with MinGW-based builds; no idea if
CsoundQt projects are now compiling against AppVeyor Csound or MinGW
Csound.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Victor Lazzarini
 wrote:
> I have not tested the latest, but the previous version seems fairly stable
> in my experience,
> on OSX, that is.
>
>
> Victor Lazzarini
> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
> Maynooth University
> Ireland
>
> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:40, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
> test.
> Complete silence so far.
> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
> confirm that it works for them.
>
> Tarmo
>
> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
> :
>>
>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>>
>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >
>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>> >  wrote:
>> >> What is 1 about?
>> >>
>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> >> Maynooth University
>> >> Ireland
>> >>
>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>>
>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>> >>> list that:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>> >>> for release.
>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>> >>>
>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>> >>>

I think this might be a perennial problem for Csound API-based hosts. If there is some dodgy Csound code or sometimes using a component that is not well developed (say an opcode that is not fully stable), a crash just brings everything down.

Not quite sure there is a solution, but just keep trying to find bugs and trying to enforce the contribution of code that is fully functional (not only that "it works for me" and is half finished).

Two other solutions: one would be to just use a separate process. That seems a backwards step, loosing interactivity.
Another would be to redesign the approach
to use a server. When that crashes, it is
less of an issue as it does not appear to
bring everything down.

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:58, Steven Yi  wrote:
> 
> I feel like I'm just repeating what I wrote on the other list, but
> anyways, people at the conference reported it crashing on all
> platforms (including OSX) in various ways.  Nothing definitive, just
> stories like "I was using it to teach x and it crashed", or it crashed
> for a student and now they think "Csound is horrible because it
> crashes".
> 
> On Windows, there's an added issue of different builds now, as the
> Appveyor build is currently setup to build CsoundQT itself. The Visual
> Studio build is not compatible with MinGW-based builds; no idea if
> CsoundQt projects are now compiling against AppVeyor Csound or MinGW
> Csound.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>  wrote:
>> I have not tested the latest, but the previous version seems fairly stable
>> in my experience,
>> on OSX, that is.
>> 
>> 
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>> 
>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:40, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
>> test.
>> Complete silence so far.
>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
>> confirm that it works for them.
>> 
>> Tarmo
>> 
>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>> :
>>> 
>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>> 
>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> Maynooth University
>>> Ireland
>>> 
>>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>>> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>>>> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> What is 1 about?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>>> Maynooth University
>>>>> Ireland
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>>>>>> list that:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>>>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>>>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>>>>> for release.
>>>>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>>>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>>>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>>>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>>>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>>>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>>>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stabili

just adding that I suspect the situation to be the same with Cabbage and Blue, but since I don't use them normally, I can't tell.

Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland

> On 12 Oct 2017, at 22:19, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
> 
> I think this might be a perennial problem for Csound API-based hosts. If there is some dodgy Csound code or sometimes using a component that is not well developed (say an opcode that is not fully stable), a crash just brings everything down.
> 
> Not quite sure there is a solution, but just keep trying to find bugs and trying to enforce the contribution of code that is fully functional (not only that "it works for me" and is half finished).
> 
> Two other solutions: one would be to just use a separate process. That seems a backwards step, loosing interactivity.
> Another would be to redesign the approach
> to use a server. When that crashes, it is
> less of an issue as it does not appear to
> bring everything down.
> 
> Victor Lazzarini
> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
> Maynooth University
> Ireland
> 
>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:58, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> 
>> I feel like I'm just repeating what I wrote on the other list, but
>> anyways, people at the conference reported it crashing on all
>> platforms (including OSX) in various ways.  Nothing definitive, just
>> stories like "I was using it to teach x and it crashed", or it crashed
>> for a student and now they think "Csound is horrible because it
>> crashes".
>> 
>> On Windows, there's an added issue of different builds now, as the
>> Appveyor build is currently setup to build CsoundQT itself. The Visual
>> Studio build is not compatible with MinGW-based builds; no idea if
>> CsoundQt projects are now compiling against AppVeyor Csound or MinGW
>> Csound.
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>  wrote:
>>> I have not tested the latest, but the previous version seems fairly stable
>>> in my experience,
>>> on OSX, that is.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> Maynooth University
>>> Ireland
>>> 
>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:40, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
>>> test.
>>> Complete silence so far.
>>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
>>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
>>> confirm that it works for them.
>>> 
>>> Tarmo
>>> 
>>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>>> :
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>>> 
>>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> Maynooth University
>>>> Ireland
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>>>> list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>>>>> CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> What is 1 about?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>>>> Maynooth University
>>>>>> Ireland
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>>>>>>> list that:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>>>>>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>>>>>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>>>>>> for release.
>>>>>>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>>>>>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>>>>>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>>>>>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>>>>>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>>>>>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>>>>>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> stev

HI Tarmo,

I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
differences.)

The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
going to get packaged.

steven


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>  Hi,
>
> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
> test.
> Complete silence so far.
> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
> confirm that it works for them.
>
> Tarmo
>
> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
> :
>>
>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini
>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> Maynooth University
>> Ireland
>>
>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >
>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>> >  wrote:
>> >> What is 1 about?
>> >>
>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> >> Maynooth University
>> >> Ireland
>> >>
>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>>
>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>> >>> list that:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>> >>> for release.
>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>> >>>
>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>> >>>

The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.

The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
and CsoundQt with Visual C++.

We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.

Best,
Mike

-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
> HI Tarmo,
>
> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
> differences.)
>
> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
> going to get packaged.
>
> steven
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
>> test.
>> Complete silence so far.
>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
>> confirm that it works for them.
>>
>> Tarmo
>>
>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>> :
>>>
>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>>
>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> Maynooth University
>>> Ireland
>>>
>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >> What is 1 about?
>>> >>
>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> >> Maynooth University
>>> >> Ireland
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi All,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>>> >>> list that:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>> >>> for release.
>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>> >>>

Thanks for that MIchael.  I tested again here and the issue with 0.9.4
of CsoundQt and VS Csound was indeed one of looking for csPerfThread
symbols.  Using 0.9.5 rc2 did not have link problems and ran.

Question: Is there an advantage to building CsoundQt over using a
binary that is provided by Tarmo?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
> to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
>
> The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
> csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
> accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
> and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
>
> We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> HI Tarmo,
>>
>> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
>> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
>> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
>> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
>> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
>> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
>> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
>> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
>> differences.)
>>
>> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
>> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
>> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
>> going to get packaged.
>>
>> steven
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes  wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people to
>>> test.
>>> Complete silence so far.
>>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want to
>>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
>>> confirm that it works for them.
>>>
>>> Tarmo
>>>
>>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>>>
>>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> Maynooth University
>>>> Ireland
>>>>
>>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >  wrote:
>>>> >> What is 1 about?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> >> Maynooth University
>>>> >> Ireland
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Hi All,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on user
>>>> >>> list that:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is unfit
>>>> >>> for release.
>>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate upon.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>> >>>

Interesting hack!  I was thinking about sandboxing Csound too, but I'm
not sure how much that'd affect performance, especially since I'd need
to synchronously run things in Blue with the engine.  (I'm not even
sure how I'd get those to run in sync...)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
> Yes, it's the same with Cabbage Victor. I now run Csound through a command
> line app first to check for errors during the first few k cycles. If it
> passes, Cabbage goes ahead and compiles the code through the API. It's a
> hack but limits the damage somewhat. It also allows down the build time when
> updating an instrument.
>
> However, the latest version of Cabbage uses an underlying audio graph, where
> each Csound plugin is a node. I could potentially sandbox each node as more
> and more hosts are doing. It might not be easy but it would provide an
> elegant solution.
>
> On the other hand, a server that would protect hosts from Csound crashes
> would be a very welcome development.
>
>
>
> On 12 Oct 2017 11:26 p.m., "Michael Gogins" 
> wrote:
>
> The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
> to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
>
> The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
> csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
> accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
> and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
>
> We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> HI Tarmo,
>>
>> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
>> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
>> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
>> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
>> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
>> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
>> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
>> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
>> differences.)
>>
>> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
>> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
>> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
>> going to get packaged.
>>
>> steven
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes 
>> wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes people
>>> to
>>> test.
>>> Complete silence so far.
>>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont want
>>> to
>>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms must
>>> confirm that it works for them.
>>>
>>> Tarmo
>>>
>>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular problem?
>>>>
>>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> Maynooth University
>>>> Ireland
>>>>
>>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer with
>>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >  wrote:
>>>> >> What is 1 about?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> >> Maynooth University
>>>> >> Ireland
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Hi All,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on
>>>> >>> user
>>>> >>> list that:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is
>>>> >>> unfit
>>>> >>> for release.
>>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch but
>>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30 minutes
>>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate
>>>> >>> upon.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after this, I
>>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11 soon
>>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> steven
>

But we want to use a stable build, not one "more up to date" right?
Seems like we should only used released builds by Tarmo, so that there
is only one canonical CsoundQt version (i.e., 0.9.5 means only the one
from Tarmo).  That way whatever Tarmo is testing and releasing is what
we are providing, not a build that hasn't been tested by him (or
others in CsoundQt community).

This goes back to the three installers vs. two installers (or rather,
three artifacts vs. 2).  If we have a minimal build, then that could
be what is used by 3rd parties (like CsoundQt) to build against.  Then
a 3rd platform installer could be built from the minimal install +
CsoundQt build.

The platform installer could also be done as a separate project in a
separate repository that collects artifacts from Csound, CsoundQt, and
others, and puts them together.  All release schedules then would be
separate (i.e., we don't wait on CsoundQt, they don't wait on us, only
platform team would have to coordinate, which seems right.)


Anyways: this has veered a bit from 6.10 release planning.  When do we
all want to target a release, with the issues in the original post
taken into account?



On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> Building it means it's more up to date and problems with the appveyor build
> tell is we need to fix something in CsoundQt.
>
> On Oct 12, 2017 18:52, "Steven Yi"  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for that MIchael.  I tested again here and the issue with 0.9.4
>> of CsoundQt and VS Csound was indeed one of looking for csPerfThread
>> symbols.  Using 0.9.5 rc2 did not have link problems and ran.
>>
>> Question: Is there an advantage to building CsoundQt over using a
>> binary that is provided by Tarmo?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Michael Gogins
>>  wrote:
>> > The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
>> > to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
>> >
>> > The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
>> > csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
>> > accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
>> > and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
>> >
>> > We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>> > Michael Gogins
>> > Irreducible Productions
>> > http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
>> > Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >> HI Tarmo,
>> >>
>> >> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
>> >> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
>> >> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
>> >> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
>> >> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
>> >> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
>> >> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
>> >> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
>> >> differences.)
>> >>
>> >> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
>> >> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
>> >> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
>> >> going to get packaged.
>> >>
>> >> steven
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>  Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes
>> >>> people to
>> >>> test.
>> >>> Complete silence so far.
>> >>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont
>> >>> want to
>> >>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>> >>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms
>> >>> must
>> >>> confirm that it works for them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tarmo
>> >>>
>> >>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>> >>> :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular
>> >>>> problem?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Victor Lazzarini
>> >>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> >>>> Maynooth University
>> >>>> Ireland
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>> >>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer
>> >>>> > with
>> >>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>> >>>> >  wrote:
>> >>>> >> What is 1 about?
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>> >>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>> >>>> >> Maynooth University
>> >>>> >> Ireland
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on
>> >>>> >>> user
>> >>>> >>> list that:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>> >>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>> >>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is
>> >>>> >>> unfit
>> >>>> >>> for release.
>> >>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch
>> >>>> >>> but
>> >>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>> >>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>> >>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30
>> >>>> >>> minutes
>> >>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate
>> >>>> >>> upon.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after
>> >>>> >>> this, I
>> >>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11
>> >>>> >>> soon
>> >>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>> >>>> >>>

No, I want to build with the latest sources to see if they have
problems. There needs to be more eyes on the CsoundQt code.

To address your concerns about stabiity, we can just do a build matrix
where one artifact uses a release tag or branch, and the other uses
the head.

Best,
Mike

-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
> But we want to use a stable build, not one "more up to date" right?
> Seems like we should only used released builds by Tarmo, so that there
> is only one canonical CsoundQt version (i.e., 0.9.5 means only the one
> from Tarmo).  That way whatever Tarmo is testing and releasing is what
> we are providing, not a build that hasn't been tested by him (or
> others in CsoundQt community).
>
> This goes back to the three installers vs. two installers (or rather,
> three artifacts vs. 2).  If we have a minimal build, then that could
> be what is used by 3rd parties (like CsoundQt) to build against.  Then
> a 3rd platform installer could be built from the minimal install +
> CsoundQt build.
>
> The platform installer could also be done as a separate project in a
> separate repository that collects artifacts from Csound, CsoundQt, and
> others, and puts them together.  All release schedules then would be
> separate (i.e., we don't wait on CsoundQt, they don't wait on us, only
> platform team would have to coordinate, which seems right.)
>
>
> Anyways: this has veered a bit from 6.10 release planning.  When do we
> all want to target a release, with the issues in the original post
> taken into account?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Gogins
>  wrote:
>> Building it means it's more up to date and problems with the appveyor build
>> tell is we need to fix something in CsoundQt.
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2017 18:52, "Steven Yi"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for that MIchael.  I tested again here and the issue with 0.9.4
>>> of CsoundQt and VS Csound was indeed one of looking for csPerfThread
>>> symbols.  Using 0.9.5 rc2 did not have link problems and ran.
>>>
>>> Question: Is there an advantage to building CsoundQt over using a
>>> binary that is provided by Tarmo?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Michael Gogins
>>>  wrote:
>>> > The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
>>> > to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
>>> >
>>> > The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
>>> > csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
>>> > accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
>>> > and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
>>> >
>>> > We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Mike
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>>> > Michael Gogins
>>> > Irreducible Productions
>>> > http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
>>> > Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >> HI Tarmo,
>>> >>
>>> >> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
>>> >> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
>>> >> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
>>> >> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
>>> >> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
>>> >> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
>>> >> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
>>> >> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
>>> >> differences.)
>>> >>
>>> >> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
>>> >> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
>>> >> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
>>> >> going to get packaged.
>>> >>
>>> >> steven
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>  Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes
>>> >>> people to
>>> >>> test.
>>> >>> Complete silence so far.
>>> >>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont
>>> >>> want to
>>> >>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>>> >>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms
>>> >>> must
>>> >>> confirm that it works for them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tarmo
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>>> >>> :
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular
>>> >>>> problem?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>> >>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> >>>> Maynooth University
>>> >>>> Ireland
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>> >>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer
>>> >>>> > with
>>> >>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>> >>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>>> >> What is 1 about?
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>>> >>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>> >>>> >> Maynooth University
>>> >>>> >> Ireland
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> Hi All,
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on
>>> >>>> >>> user
>>> >>>> >>> list that:
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>> >>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>> >>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is
>>> >>>> >>> unfit
>>> >>>> >>> for release.
>>> >>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch
>>> >>>> >>> but
>>> >>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>> >>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>> >>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30
>>> >>>> >>> minutes
>>> >>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate
>>> >>>> >>> upon.
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after
>>> >>>> >>> this, I
>>> >>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11
>>> >>>> >>> soon
>>> >>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>> >>>> >>>

But then, why not just setup an Appveyor build for CsoundQt?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Michael Gogins
 wrote:
> No, I want to build with the latest sources to see if they have
> problems. There needs to be more eyes on the CsoundQt code.
>
> To address your concerns about stabiity, we can just do a build matrix
> where one artifact uses a release tag or branch, and the other uses
> the head.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> But we want to use a stable build, not one "more up to date" right?
>> Seems like we should only used released builds by Tarmo, so that there
>> is only one canonical CsoundQt version (i.e., 0.9.5 means only the one
>> from Tarmo).  That way whatever Tarmo is testing and releasing is what
>> we are providing, not a build that hasn't been tested by him (or
>> others in CsoundQt community).
>>
>> This goes back to the three installers vs. two installers (or rather,
>> three artifacts vs. 2).  If we have a minimal build, then that could
>> be what is used by 3rd parties (like CsoundQt) to build against.  Then
>> a 3rd platform installer could be built from the minimal install +
>> CsoundQt build.
>>
>> The platform installer could also be done as a separate project in a
>> separate repository that collects artifacts from Csound, CsoundQt, and
>> others, and puts them together.  All release schedules then would be
>> separate (i.e., we don't wait on CsoundQt, they don't wait on us, only
>> platform team would have to coordinate, which seems right.)
>>
>>
>> Anyways: this has veered a bit from 6.10 release planning.  When do we
>> all want to target a release, with the issues in the original post
>> taken into account?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Gogins
>>  wrote:
>>> Building it means it's more up to date and problems with the appveyor build
>>> tell is we need to fix something in CsoundQt.
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2017 18:52, "Steven Yi"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that MIchael.  I tested again here and the issue with 0.9.4
>>>> of CsoundQt and VS Csound was indeed one of looking for csPerfThread
>>>> symbols.  Using 0.9.5 rc2 did not have link problems and ran.
>>>>
>>>> Question: Is there an advantage to building CsoundQt over using a
>>>> binary that is provided by Tarmo?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Michael Gogins
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> > The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
>>>> > to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
>>>> >
>>>> > The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
>>>> > csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
>>>> > accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
>>>> > and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
>>>> >
>>>> > We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> > Mike
>>>> >
>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>>>> > Michael Gogins
>>>> > Irreducible Productions
>>>> > http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
>>>> > Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >> HI Tarmo,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
>>>> >> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
>>>> >> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
>>>> >> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
>>>> >> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of Csound
>>>> >> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build will
>>>> >> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
>>>> >> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
>>>> >> differences.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
>>>> >> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change to
>>>> >> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
>>>> >> going to get packaged.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> steven
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes 
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>  Hi,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes
>>>> >>> people to
>>>> >>> test.
>>>> >>> Complete silence so far.
>>>> >>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont
>>>> >>> want to
>>>> >>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
>>>> >>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms
>>>> >>> must
>>>> >>> confirm that it works for them.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Tarmo
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
>>>> >>> :
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular
>>>> >>>> problem?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> >>>> Maynooth University
>>>> >>>> Ireland
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the user
>>>> >>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer
>>>> >>>> > with
>>>> >>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >>>> >  wrote:
>>>> >>>> >> What is 1 about?
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
>>>> >>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
>>>> >>>> >> Maynooth University
>>>> >>>> >> Ireland
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> Hi All,
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions on
>>>> >>>> >>> user
>>>> >>>> >>> list that:
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
>>>> >>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
>>>> >>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is
>>>> >>>> >>> unfit
>>>> >>>> >>> for release.
>>>> >>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch
>>>> >>>> >>> but
>>>> >>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
>>>> >>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
>>>> >>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30
>>>> >>>> >>> minutes
>>>> >>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to iterate
>>>> >>>> >>> upon.
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after
>>>> >>>> >>> this, I
>>>> >>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11
>>>> >>>> >>> soon
>>>> >>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
>>>> >>>> >>>

Hi,

My opinion is, that the "usual", mot typical user on Windows should get the 
most stable version from CsoundQt and that  it is the latest release from 
master branch. As said many times in the discussions, people want to have a 
program that just works and I think it is wrong to force people to be in a 
state where they turn into testers (that is, of course, very needed from 
developers view) and get frustrated.

I think it is perfect that AppVeyor does builds from develop branch for people 
who want to get the latest improvements but there MUST be one build or version 
that includes CsoundQt 0.9.5 stable (the version in develop is named now 
0.9.6-beta). Or how is the windows installer going to be made? Or is stays 
just a link to AppVeyor builds?

CsoundQt 0.9.5-rc2 is built on Windows now against Csound 6.09.1, I should 
install actually Csound 6.10 and do another build, this is true.

We can still think also about separating CsoundQt and core-Csound from this 
release on, then there should be somewhere a very clear link to latest 
CsoundQt release. So far I have not done windows installers (just zip-files for 
testing) but that could be changed.

Michael, you have vast experience in this, what do you think, what is best?

What concern crashes- indeed, one reason for crashes is Csound crashing. We 
talked about it just some days ago Rory and he showed the code how Cabbage 
uses a small separate process to do a small test run to see if it does not end 
with crash. For future I am thinking to investigate QRemoteObjects https://
doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtremoteobjects-index.html that came out with Qt 5.9 so that 
the frontend and CsoundEngine class can be in different processes or even 
different machines. Could be a big improvement for user experience but takes 
much work to investigate and implement it.

greetings,
tarmo

On reede, 13. oktoober 2017 2:36.31 EEST Michael Gogins wrote:
> No, I want to build with the latest sources to see if they have
> problems. There needs to be more eyes on the CsoundQt code.
> 
> To address your concerns about stabiity, we can just do a build matrix
> where one artifact uses a release tag or branch, and the other uses
> the head.
> 
> Best,
> Mike
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
> > But we want to use a stable build, not one "more up to date" right?
> > Seems like we should only used released builds by Tarmo, so that there
> > is only one canonical CsoundQt version (i.e., 0.9.5 means only the one
> > from Tarmo).  That way whatever Tarmo is testing and releasing is what
> > we are providing, not a build that hasn't been tested by him (or
> > others in CsoundQt community).
> > 
> > This goes back to the three installers vs. two installers (or rather,
> > three artifacts vs. 2).  If we have a minimal build, then that could
> > be what is used by 3rd parties (like CsoundQt) to build against.  Then
> > a 3rd platform installer could be built from the minimal install +
> > CsoundQt build.
> > 
> > The platform installer could also be done as a separate project in a
> > separate repository that collects artifacts from Csound, CsoundQt, and
> > others, and puts them together.  All release schedules then would be
> > separate (i.e., we don't wait on CsoundQt, they don't wait on us, only
> > platform team would have to coordinate, which seems right.)
> > 
> > 
> > Anyways: this has veered a bit from 6.10 release planning.  When do we
> > all want to target a release, with the issues in the original post
> > taken into account?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Gogins
> > 
> >  wrote:
> >> Building it means it's more up to date and problems with the appveyor
> >> build
> >> tell is we need to fix something in CsoundQt.
> >> 
> >> On Oct 12, 2017 18:52, "Steven Yi"  wrote:
> >>> Thanks for that MIchael.  I tested again here and the issue with 0.9.4
> >>> of CsoundQt and VS Csound was indeed one of looking for csPerfThread
> >>> symbols.  Using 0.9.5 rc2 did not have link problems and ran.
> >>> 
> >>> Question: Is there an advantage to building CsoundQt over using a
> >>> binary that is provided by Tarmo?
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Michael Gogins
> >>> 
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > The AppVeyor build always pulls the CsoundQt develop head. That's easy
> >>> > to change by just editing the appveyor.yml file.
> >>> > 
> >>> > The CsoundQt binary will not care about the C++ ABI if the
> >>> > csPerfThread.cpp file is compiled by the CsoundQt compiler and not
> >>> > accessed in a library. For years I was building Csound with mingw64
> >>> > and CsoundQt with Visual C++.
> >>> > 
> >>> > We obviously have to do the testing ourselves.
> >>> > 
> >>> > Best,
> >>> > Mike
> >>> > 
> >>> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >>> > Michael Gogins
> >>> > Irreducible Productions
> >>> > http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> >>> > Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
> >>> > 
> >>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
> >>> >> HI Tarmo,
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> I tested the RC2 here and it seemed to work fine for the few examples
> >>> >> I tried. The screen size was really small though, but I am unsure
> >>> >> whether that is a real issue due to using a HiDPI screen, or if it is
> >>> >> a Windows 10 bug as it sometimes does this with other applications.
> >>> >> One thing to note is that I am using a self-compiled version of
> >>> >> Csound
> >>> >> on Windows 10 that was built with MinGW.  I suspect the RC2 build
> >>> >> will
> >>> >> not work with Csound built with Visual Studio.  (0.9.4 did not work
> >>> >> with my local VS build of Csound due to C++ symbol naming
> >>> >> differences.)
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> The AppVeyor build of Csound is, I believe, always downloading the
> >>> >> latest CsoundQt sources. This may be something that needs to change
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> pull a specific tag or otherwise it's not a stable version that is
> >>> >> going to get packaged.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> steven
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tarmo Johannes 
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>  Hi,
> >>> >>> 
> >>> >>> I uploaded release candidate for CsoundQt two days ago and askes
> >>> >>> people to
> >>> >>> test.
> >>> >>> Complete silence so far.
> >>> >>> Pity, but unfortunately this is the situation so often - people dont
> >>> >>> want to
> >>> >>> put their time into testing and later are unhappy...
> >>> >>> Anyway I absolutely agree that a number of people from all platforms
> >>> >>> must
> >>> >>> confirm that it works for them.
> >>> >>> 
> >>> >>> Tarmo
> >>> >>> 
> >>> >>> 12.10.2017 23:30 kirjutas kuupäeval "Victor Lazzarini"
> >>> >>> 
> >>> >>> :
> >>> >>>> Isn't it stable? I find it fairly ok. Is there any particular
> >>> >>>> problem?
> >>> >>>> 
> >>> >>>> Victor Lazzarini
> >>> >>>> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
> >>> >>>> Maynooth University
> >>> >>>> Ireland
> >>> >>>> 
> >>> >>>> > On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:22, Steven Yi  wrote:
> >>> >>>> > 
> >>> >>>> > This has been discussed a bit at Csound Conference and on the
> >>> >>>> > user
> >>> >>>> > list.  Whenever we release, since we are releasing the installer
> >>> >>>> > with
> >>> >>>> > CsoundQt still, we need to make sure CsoundQt will be stable.
> >>> >>>> > 
> >>> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
> >>> >>>> > 
> >>> >>>> >  wrote:
> >>> >>>> >> What is 1 about?
> >>> >>>> >> 
> >>> >>>> >> Victor Lazzarini
> >>> >>>> >> Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
> >>> >>>> >> Maynooth University
> >>> >>>> >> Ireland
> >>> >>>> >> 
> >>> >>>> >>> On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:09, Steven Yi  wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>> 
> >>> >>>> >>> Hi All,
> >>> >>>> >>> 
> >>> >>>> >>> So what do we need now for 6.10?  Seems like from discussions
> >>> >>>> >>> on
> >>> >>>> >>> user
> >>> >>>> >>> list that:
> >>> >>>> >>> 
> >>> >>>> >>> 1. CsoundQT crashing needs to be addressed
> >>> >>>> >>> 2. loscil bug is bad so we want to get 6.10 out soon
> >>> >>>> >>> 3. Visual Studio (AppVeyor) build has had little testing and is
> >>> >>>> >>> unfit
> >>> >>>> >>> for release.
> >>> >>>> >>> 4. Lock Removal - has already gotten started in develop branch
> >>> >>>> >>> but
> >>> >>>> >>> hasn't replaced anything yet
> >>> >>>> >>> 
> >>> >>>> >>> Of these, the primary concern I see is #3.  We probably need to
> >>> >>>> >>> request volunteers to test on Windows and then need time to
> >>> >>>> >>> diagnose/fix.  Considering the Appveyor build takes about 30
> >>> >>>> >>> minutes
> >>> >>>> >>> to build each build, I don't think this will be quick to
> >>> >>>> >>> iterate
> >>> >>>> >>> upon.
> >>> >>>> >>> 
> >>> >>>> >>> Also, if we are going to be moving on to Csound 7 soon after
> >>> >>>> >>> this, I
> >>> >>>> >>> think we need to make 6.10 really robust, or plan to do a 6.11
> >>> >>>> >>> soon
> >>> >>>> >>> after 6.10 but before CS7 that just deals with stability.
> >>> >>>> >>>