Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

5788 discussions

by Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo

hello guys, just detected a typo in HEAD, in device manager "HAR DDISK" instead of "HARD DISK" As this is a very stupid "bug"... should i send a report about it?

3 years, 2 months

Development request

by Mohamed Atef

Hello there, We are 6 students from Egypt and now We are in our last year and We need to build a project as a graduation project. And We are interested in the area of runtime systems, operating systems and compilers. We are going to work 40-60 hrs a week Can We help with some tools you need as a graduation project given that We have a professor to mentor us. If not, Can you suggest some tools you need to build and We will work on it. The project takes one academic year Thanks

3 years, 3 months

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: KBDHID: IOCTL_KEYBOARD_QUERY_* calls must return STATUS_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL if the output buffer is too small

by Thomas Faber

On 2021-09-12 08:34, Eric Kohl wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/hid/kbdhid/kbdhid.c b/drivers/hid/kbdhid/kbdhid.c > index bacf72a0109..b07a7d8445c 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/kbdhid/kbdhid.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/kbdhid/kbdhid.c > @@ -444,8 +444,8 @@ KbdHid_InternalDeviceControl( > case IOCTL_KEYBOARD_QUERY_INDICATORS: > if (IoStack->Parameters.DeviceIoControl.OutputBufferLength < sizeof(KEYBOARD_INDICATOR_PARAMETERS)) > { > - /* invalid parameter */ > - Irp->IoStatus.Status = STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER; > + /* buffer too small */ > + Irp->IoStatus.Status = STATUS_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL; > IoCompleteRequest(Irp, IO_NO_INCREMENT); > return STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER; Shouldn't the dispatch routine's return value change accordingly in these cases? Thanks, Thomas

3 years, 3 months

Re: [ros-dev] The situation with version 0.4.14

by George Bişoc

I'd also vote for the 1st point and ultimately list the current regressions in the press release. After all the remaining regressions can be fixed and further regression testing be continued in the next release as usual. Most of the regressions which belong within user mode aren't huge stop-blockers so I see no point in delaying the release much. Victor Perevertkin <victor.perevertkin(a)reactos.org> wrote on Tue, February 9th, 2021, 4:47 PM: > Hello! > > It seems for me that it's time to bring up the topic about our RC > version - 0.4.14. > > Our current "stable", 0.4.13 was branched on 30 September, 2019 > (remember those peacefull pre-COVID times :D) > That's quite some time, but not the main issue I'd like to discuss. > > 0.4.14 was branched on 24 April, 2020. That's almost a year already. > And we're in a difficult situation here - there are regressions, but > nobody fixed them within this long time. > According to https://reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.14, there are 29 > unfixed regressions found for this release. I'd like to point out: most > of them are among usermode and non-kernel/driver functionality, and as > our development is mostly focused in the kernel right now, it's > unexpected for them to be fixed unless a volunteer comes up. > > A quick reminder. Our "releases" mechanism is useful for finding > regressions in the first place, there is no that much benefit for users > here, because we're still a "deep" alpha. Correct me if I'm wrong. > Joakim made a great job finding all regressions, and this work won't be > lost in any case. > > We can't wait forever and I think it's time to resolve this situation > somehow. I see two options: > 1. Release 0.4.14 as-is. There were a lot more buggy releases, nobody > dies from this. > 2. Skip 0.4.14. This already happened once in the history of the > project - 0.3.2 was skipped. I wasn't around at the time, but I may > guess that reasons were similar to what we have today. > (3.) Fix the bugs quickly. I don't expect this to happen, but who > knows, maybe a volunteer appears :) > > Let's vote. This seem to be the only way for us to decide on things. > Votes from the team members will be collected until 1 March. > > === > > I personally vote for skipping the release. The work on finding > regressions is already done, so the most important part of a release > cycle for us is there (thanks Joakim!) > If we do a release now, all the stuff we were writing in news reports > for the last 6 month would be missing from it. That would cause (as I > think) a lot of confusion to people. Moreover 0.4.14 is not that > featureful release itself (compared to 0.4.13, which brought the new > USB stack) > So I suggest to move on and start checking 0.4.15 for regressions. I > expect quite some of them to appear and we need time for fixing. > > > Cheers, > Victor

3 years, 5 months

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: [COMCTL32] Addendum to last commit (#3674) CORE-17199

by Colin Finck

Joachim Henze wrote: > commit adee5ca255b7ed21f359ca8c1ca06bd44db90dcf > Author: Joachim Henze <Joachim.Henze at reactos.org> > AuthorDate: Mon Jun 28 02:05:56 2021 +0200 > Commit: Joachim Henze <Joachim.Henze at reactos.org> > CommitDate: Mon Jun 28 02:05:56 2021 +0200 > > [COMCTL32] Addendum to last commit (#3674) CORE-17199 > > Keep that section like we had it to > support compilation on VS2010. > It does still work like that. > > [...] > > diff --git a/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c b/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > index 71bb3d238b0..51e58fc71f1 100644 > --- a/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > +++ b/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > @@ -130,8 +130,13 @@ static const WCHAR allowedformatchars[] = L"dhHmMstyX"; > static const int maxrepetition [] = {4,2,2,2,4,2,2,4,-1}; > > /* valid date limits */ > +#ifndef __REACTOS__ > static const SYSTEMTIME max_allowed_date = { .wYear = 9999, .wMonth = 12, .wDayOfWeek = 0, .wDay = 31 }; > static const SYSTEMTIME min_allowed_date = { .wYear = 1752, .wMonth = 9, .wDayOfWeek = 0, .wDay = 14 }; > +#else > +static const SYSTEMTIME max_allowed_date = { /*.wYear =*/ 9999, /*.wMonth =*/ 12, /*.wDayOfWeek =*/ 0, /*.wDay =*/ 31 }; > +static const SYSTEMTIME min_allowed_date = { /*.wYear =*/ 1752, /*.wMonth =*/ 9, /*.wDayOfWeek =*/ 0, /*.wDay =*/ 14 }; > +#endif This adds an unnecessary ReactOS-specific diff to a file that was perfectly in sync with Wine 6.0 before, just for supporting an old compiler that has not only been abandoned by us, but obviously also upstream. Being able to source this file unmodified (and eventually sourcing all of comctl32 automatically via a Git submodule/subpath/repo xml file) beats any such hack. I therefore call for a revert. Even worse than all of that, this commit has been silently sneaked on top of a PR without any review! Joachim, you love to criticize the instability of the master branch, yet continue to ignore basic development practices we have established. And this isn't happening for the first time. Another example is https://github.com/reactos/reactos/commit/889eab78ca7c0f17a2ada9ff20de5807a… where you disable sanity checks and create a diff to upstream. All without reviews and all just for your private goal of reducing the binary size of debug builds, something that is not important at the current stage of ReactOS. I would love to see PRs for your ideas, and then we can discuss everything that hasn't been decided before (i.e. not VS2010 support again). But if this doesn't stop, I have no chance other than removing your push access to the GitHub repo, as everything else would mean condoning that uncooperative behavior. Best regards, Colin

3 years, 5 months

Current votes on the situation with the 0.4.14 release

by George Bişoc

During the last days of February of this year some team members have participated in a vote concerning the delay of 0.4.14 release due to the amount of regressions making it not eligible to be released as per the release engineering guidelines. As 1st of March has already passed, this is the current situation with the votes as they stand out for the moment in the following order. 1. Release 0.4.14 as-is (with its known regressions as of now) ================================================= * Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo * Stanislav Motylkov * Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO * Alexander Rechitskiy * George Bişoc 2. Skip 0.4.14 ================================================= * Victor Perevertkin * Joshua Rice (non team member) 3. Fix the bugs as soon as possible ================================================= None Oleg Dubinskiy's vote is not counted because his mail is apparently empty (???). Considering the collected votes, should we extend the period of voting for a few days so that the other team members can have an opinion too regard the matter or shall we conclude the voting as is and proceed further with releasing 0.4.14? Regards, George

3 years, 9 months

Re: [ros-dev] CLT 2021. I need a few more ppl as stand members

by Daniel Reimer

Whoa so many volunteers. ^^ Ok, I will note all down and then tomorrow check the limits we have. If one is not allowed to be added by me anymore I will still more than welcome everyone who wants to join the party. Maybe we even can add more on our own later. :D Greetings Daniel Stas'M <binarymaster(a)mail.ru> schrieb am Sa, 20.02.2021 21:44: > It seems Aleksey and Alexander are in, so it's going to be very interesting! > > Daniel, count me in :) > > > -- > Stas'M was here > > > Thursday, 18 February 2021, 12:54 +03:00 from "Daniel Reimer" <daniel.reimer(a)reactos.org>: > > Not much to say. I paste a translated mail from CLT staff in here now to > > give you all (non private) information we have by now: > > > > ................... > > > > As you can imagine, everything is a bit different this year. Due to the > > Corona situation, we will not be able to meet at the TU Chemnitz in > > March. Therefore, the Chemnitzer Linux-Tage 2021 will take place purely > > virtually. With this mail we would like to inform you about the > > essential boundary conditions. > > > > You can register additional booth attendants until February 21. > > We will provide you with a virtual videoconference room in our open > > source videoconferencing system BigBlueButton. Our visitors will be able > > to enter this videoconference room during the event and interact with > > you. We will offer demo dates for BigBlueButton. Until then you can test > > it at the following URL: > > https://demo.bigbluebutton.org/gl/ > > > > You are free to decide about the design of your booth program. You can > > either be available for talks and discussions the whole time or publish > > a small booth program yourself (e.g. mini-discussion rounds, quizzes, > > whatever comes to your mind). IMPORTANT: Please send us your booth > > program (time, title, short description) by e-mail by February 21. > > If you do not create your own program, please make sure that at least > > one of you is always available in the video conference room during the > > entire event, so that the booth does not look abandoned. > > > > .................... > > > > So I need one or two more guys to help out. Date is 13. / 14. March > > 2021. If you wanna help out, I will need your full name, title if > > existing and email address. > > > > HELP MEEE > > > > thx > > > > Daniel Reimer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ros-dev mailing list > > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org > > http://reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org > http://reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

3 years, 10 months

CLT 2021. I need a few more ppl as stand members

by Daniel Reimer

Not much to say. I paste a translated mail from CLT staff in here now to give you all (non private) information we have by now: ................... As you can imagine, everything is a bit different this year. Due to the Corona situation, we will not be able to meet at the TU Chemnitz in March. Therefore, the Chemnitzer Linux-Tage 2021 will take place purely virtually. With this mail we would like to inform you about the essential boundary conditions. You can register additional booth attendants until February 21. We will provide you with a virtual videoconference room in our open source videoconferencing system BigBlueButton. Our visitors will be able to enter this videoconference room during the event and interact with you. We will offer demo dates for BigBlueButton. Until then you can test it at the following URL: https://demo.bigbluebutton.org/gl/ You are free to decide about the design of your booth program. You can either be available for talks and discussions the whole time or publish a small booth program yourself (e.g. mini-discussion rounds, quizzes, whatever comes to your mind). IMPORTANT: Please send us your booth program (time, title, short description) by e-mail by February 21. If you do not create your own program, please make sure that at least one of you is always available in the video conference room during the entire event, so that the booth does not look abandoned. .................... So I need one or two more guys to help out. Date is 13. / 14. March 2021. If you wanna help out, I will need your full name, title if existing and email address. HELP MEEE thx Daniel Reimer

3 years, 10 months

The situation with version 0.4.14

by Victor Perevertkin

Hello! It seems for me that it's time to bring up the topic about our RC version - 0.4.14. Our current "stable", 0.4.13 was branched on 30 September, 2019 (remember those peacefull pre-COVID times :D) That's quite some time, but not the main issue I'd like to discuss. 0.4.14 was branched on 24 April, 2020. That's almost a year already. And we're in a difficult situation here - there are regressions, but nobody fixed them within this long time. According to https://reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.14, there are 29 unfixed regressions found for this release. I'd like to point out: most of them are among usermode and non-kernel/driver functionality, and as our development is mostly focused in the kernel right now, it's unexpected for them to be fixed unless a volunteer comes up. A quick reminder. Our "releases" mechanism is useful for finding regressions in the first place, there is no that much benefit for users here, because we're still a "deep" alpha. Correct me if I'm wrong. Joakim made a great job finding all regressions, and this work won't be lost in any case. We can't wait forever and I think it's time to resolve this situation somehow. I see two options: 1. Release 0.4.14 as-is. There were a lot more buggy releases, nobody dies from this. 2. Skip 0.4.14. This already happened once in the history of the project - 0.3.2 was skipped. I wasn't around at the time, but I may guess that reasons were similar to what we have today. (3.) Fix the bugs quickly. I don't expect this to happen, but who knows, maybe a volunteer appears :) Let's vote. This seem to be the only way for us to decide on things. Votes from the team members will be collected until 1 March. === I personally vote for skipping the release. The work on finding regressions is already done, so the most important part of a release cycle for us is there (thanks Joakim!) If we do a release now, all the stuff we were writing in news reports for the last 6 month would be missing from it. That would cause (as I think) a lot of confusion to people. Moreover 0.4.14 is not that featureful release itself (compared to 0.4.13, which brought the new USB stack) So I suggest to move on and start checking 0.4.15 for regressions. I expect quite some of them to appear and we need time for fixing. Cheers, Victor

3 years, 10 months

The situation with version 0.4.14

by Олег Дубінський

3 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev