2nd release candidate for Octave 6?

There has been a considerable amount of changes on the stable branch since the first release candidate 6.0.90. I am counting approximately 90(!) changesets.
The rate of changes (on the stable branch) seems to have slowed down recently.
Does that mean that we are ready for the next release candidate (RC)?
Are there remaining blockers that should be fixed before the next RC?

To answer my own question: A potential candidate for a blocking issue might be this (because it is a reliably reproducible segfault on those docker images):

AFAICT, Kai (@siko1056) is looking into this. I am not sure if there is a corresponding bug report on savannah already.

I had a similar problem on my workstation computer with Centos 8. It appears the problem was that sparse lib was using atlas libs and all the rest – openblas. I recompiled sparselib against openblas and the problem has gone away.

Dmitri.

1 Like

IIUC, Kai uses the same docker image on 4 different host. Only two of those expose the issue.
Is that consistent with an ATLAS OpenBLAS mis-match? I.e., are those combinations expected to behave differently on different hardware?

I just have an anecdote. Atlas is pretty old and Kai is using a new-ish CPUs; perhaps this is the problem.
What is important that I really had to recompile, the trick with LD_PRELOAD would not work.

Dmitri.

@dasergatskov Thanks for the hint. Maybe my bug report can be misleading with CentOS 7 and 8. Those are my host systems running Docker images based on Ubuntu 18.04.

Does this problem with “libsuitespase-dev” and ATLAS also apply for Ubuntu 18.04?

Could you look at the coredumps? In my case it was something from atlas (either xerbla or dgemm) though I tried LD_PRELOAD the openblas libs. I ended up removing atlas altogether from the system and replaced all depended rpms with ones from fedora rep (I recompiled source rpms ). So it is quite possible that the problem was elsewhere (since the replacement rpms are newer than the ones in Centos).

Dmitri.

Yes, we definitely need a new release candidate. I have two bugs that I’m actively working on and that I’d like to fix first:


I remembered that the second bug listed in my previous post only applies to the default branch, not stable and I pushed a fix for the first.

Are there any other important bugs that need to be addressed before I make another test release? If not, I will create one later tonight or tomorrow.

1 Like

I’m not aware of blocking issues.

I think it’s okay to make an RC2 candidate.

6.0.92 is on alpha.gnu.org and I’m building Windows binaries now that should be uploaded later today.

2 Likes

I downloaded 6.0.92 and it builds and passes make check without problem. No surprise as this is on a vanilla platform: Kubuntu 18.04.

I just added Release versions 6.0.91 and 6.0.92 to Savannah’s bug tracker along with descriptions (RC2 and RC3).

@rik: IIUC correctly, we had to adapt our version numbering scheme for the release candidates:
6.0.90: first RC
6.0.91: version on the stable branch between release candidates
6.0.92: second RC
6.0.93: version on the stable branch between release candidates (or final release)

6.1.0: First release of Octave 6

So 6.0.92 is probably better referred to as RC2.
And if 6.0.91 is a possible choice, maybe 6.0.93 should be added as well…

@jwe: Should we add tags to the respective revisions in the Octave and MXE Octave repositories?
Which revisions did you use?

The revisions I used for 6.0.92 are now tagged in the Octave and mxe-octave repos.