V4 WG Meeting 2013-10-29

Agenda

1. Release de-briefing
2. Merge of shared_vector (pvDataCPP-md)
3. Conversion to Base 3.15
4. Supporting Unions in NTypes (and VTypes?)
5. Any Other Business

Present: AJ, BD, MD, DH, GS, MK, MS, TK, RL

Scribe: MS

Minutes

1. Release de-briefing

AJ: Managed to get the release out.

AJ: A couple of comments on pvAccessCPP/pvaSrv does not say it needs pvCommonCPP.

AJ: Mark Rivers suggested to provide a top level Makefile. David can you provide it?

DH: Yes, I can do it.

AI on DH: Add top-level Makefile and RELEASE.local to C++ build

AJ: Will work on release document.

TK: We have a Windows user, but this person does not commit to be commit a tester.

MS: If we provide good tests, there should not be a lot of work - just to run the tests. Also for Windows (a part for PSI -> CSL contract).

AJ: I will try to set up a Jenkins build on Windows here at APS, once it builds on that OS.

DH: Documentation disappeared from the release process.

AJ: A good point. It should be a part of a process. Do we have a person that knows what needs to be done.

DH: Volunteers.

AI on DH: Add documentation part to the release process.

2. Merge of shared_vector (pvDataCPP-md)

MD: I am ready to go.

MK, MS, AJ: Go!

3. Conversion to Base 3.15

DH: Concerned about port to 3.15 - not production wise, but from development point of view. It’s not just base, it’s all the other tools/libraries that needs to be ported to.

MK: Asks AJ whether 3.15 is supported by the tools/libraries?

RL: Talked to Mark Rivers about it, and MR confirms that asyn and synapps (including areaDetector) compiles against 3.15.

DH: Is it only pvaSrv that will require 3.15.

AJ: We may need 3.15 if we need new features in Base, e.g. for Windows.

RL: I was planning to support two versions of pvaSrv (one for 3.14, the other for 3.15).

RESOLUTION: We will try to continue to support 3.14 for the time being. The pvaSrv may be the only module that would require 3.15 (there will be 2 branches - one for each EPICS base version).

4. Supporting Unions in NTypes (and VTypes?)

AJ: How does introducing Unions affect existing type definitions and code using them?

MS: VTypes not affected at all. There is no existing code except ImageServer that needs the type (NTImage) that will be affected by “NTType-union port”.

BD: We need to clean up NTVariantArray in order to be used.

GS: Does anyone uses normativeTypeCPP?

MS: No. But all follow the definition as described in the NT type specification.

RESOLUTION: normativeTypeCPP and normativeTypeJava are necessary and is going to be developed. The normative type document needs to be updated.

AI: Greg owns the NT document and will take care of the changes, however others will actively contribute.

5. Any Other Business

AJ: Putting large files into the mercurial? Ralph, can you suggest what to do? Any comments?

RL: The alternative is not to put it into the mercurial. There is a scp comment how to push things to the webspace.

AI on RL: Find out a nice way how to put large files (PPTs) on the webspace.

MD: How do modified bit-sets work for unions?

MK: Like existing structure support, one bit flags any/all changes underneath.

AJ: Agenda items for next week? pvRequest and its parser.

MS: Windows status report

RL: Simplified branching scheme.