Hi Joe, This message was on my back log for a few days. Sorry for the late reply.
My comments in red below. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Joe Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > WSJT-X r3496 has been released as Version 1.1. I posted the Windows > installation package, updated User's Guide, ChangeLog, and r3496 tarball on > the WSJT web site. > > The top of the ChangeLog reads as follows: > > July 19, 2013: Version 1.1, r3496 > ------------------------------**--- > This is a full release of WSJT-X Version 1.1. It provides an easy way > to make QSOs in both JT65 and JT9 modes. > > Changes from the most recent beta release, r3487, include the > following: > > 1. Significant optimizations of the JT9 decoder, providing speed > improvements up to 5 times. > > 2. Frequency-setting through DX Lab Commander now works properly at > non-integral kHz frequencies. > > 3. A new meter widget has been added (thanks to PY2SDR). > > 4. Implementation of "multiple instances" has been completed and > tested (thanks to KK1D). > > 5. Several minor bug fixes. > > I'll post installation packages (or links to them) for Linux and OS X as > soon as they are available. > > > This is a good time to review progress and project goals. When we > released Version 1.0 I listed the following plans and "desirables" for > future development effort: > Done ? > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------- > - Eliminate dependence on Qwt YES > - Move from Qt4 to Qt5 CAN DO > - Add rig control through DxLab Commander YES > - Migrate from PortAudio to Qt's built-in QAudio handlers NO > - Add other WSJT modes: JT65, FSK441, ISCAT, JT4 ... JT65 > - Support for I/Q transceivers such as SoftRock NO > - Expanded frequency range, perhaps 5 kHz or so. YES > - HowTo guides for compiling WSJT-X in Windows/MinGW, > Linux, OS X, ... NO > - Binary installation packages for Linux and OS X YES/NO > > (We could move from Qt4 to Qt5 at any time, and I think we're close to > being ready with an installation package for OS X.) > > All in all, this is excellent progress in the past six weeks! In a number > of cases we've done even more than we had in mind when writing this list. > Many thanks and a hearty "Well Done!" to everyone who has contributed! > > So what next? It seems to me that the more important identified tasks > include these: > > - Add code written by Murray, VK3ACF, for band-by-band antenna info > Confirmed working under Linux. I've added the antenna info to the PSK-Reporter class and confirmed it is working. I will next make the new PSK-Reporter active on all platforms. Are you ok with this? > - Move from Qt4 to Qt5 > I think we are ready to pull off the plug on Qt4. This will open the path for us to start using the native Qt audio API. - Migrate from PortAudio to Qt's built-in QAudio handlers > One thing I would like to test is the possibility of using Qt audio with jack using an ALSA virtual loopback interface. This is desirable to be able to interface WSJT-X with SDR software on Linux. > - Support for I/Q transceivers such as SoftRock > This would be great and would make unnecessary what I've wrote above. > - Add more WSJT modes: JT4, ISCAT, FSK441 > Super super!! > - HowTo guides for compiling WSJT-X > This could be very good, but I think we could put this on a low priority. Those really interested in compiling the sources can always find support here on the list. > > Inevitably we'll also have some bug reports to address... and there are > always rig-control issues for particular radios that don't quite work > right. What have I forgotten? What else should be added? > > If you care to tackle one of these tasks, please let us know -- and use > the wsjt-devel list to keep us abreast of your progress. > > I will start studying the migration path to Qt Audio and will keep you posted. > I checked this morning to be sure that r3496 of WSJT-X compiles OK under > Qt5. After changing one variable name all is well. > (The declaration > extern QTcpSocket* socket; > was changed changed to > extern QTcpSocket* rigSocket; > to avoid conflict with a definition in winsock.h) > Are we ready, then, to pull the plug permanently on Qt4? One downside is > that the Windows package built from Qt5 is around 15 MB, as opposed to 10.5 > MB for Qt4. (I guess such a tendency toward bloat is inevitable.) > > Your opinions? Other suggestions? > > A few final thoughts, in passing: > > Would it be helpful if we made a serious effort to put more time into > reviewing one another's code changes and additions? > This would be good since it could help us produce better code, but it could also take some precious developing time. Perhaps one thing we could do is to work on a list of things to be tested (regression tests) and try to attract volunteers to assist us with the task. This way we could dig deep into code only when necessary. Of course, we could also take a look, review, and offer constructive criticism to each other codes when we see something that could be improved. > > How best to encourage more people to switch from JT65 to JT9, and to use > JT9 on more bands?? > This is an excellent question. Perhaps we could start some team activity ourselves by announcing that the development team will be active on a given band on a given day. We could even publish a list of contacts from our logs on a blog and give public recognition for those we have worked on multiple bands. The team concept could also be extended to some type of special activity (an expedition, field day, event, etc). What do you think? 73, -- Edson PY2SDR
_______________________________________________ Wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/wsjt-devel
