Roadmap for v5.9

[Beep6581]

https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+milestone%3Av5.9

[Beep6581]

Hey

Let me know what is the status of the codebase in terms of stability, feature-completeness and stabilization of PP3 data, so that we can plan for the 5.9 release.

[Thanatomanic]

Hi @Beep6581 welcome back online. No trouble with COVID-19 I hope?

There are quite some issues tagged v.5.9 for which nothing noteworthy has happened. What is your suggested timeframe?

[Floessie]

@Beep6581 @heckflosse @Hombre57 @Desmis @Thanatomanic I noticed that Ingo tagged some issue "6.0". Shouldn't the next version after 5.9 be "5.10"? Wouldn't "6.0" warrant incompatible changes (like PP4 or something)?

[TechXavAL]

There is a discussion about some changes in the future v6.0 that maybe would warrant a change in major version.

[heckflosse]

I tagged some issues 6.0 because that was the only tag available after 5.9

[TechXavAL]

Even if there is a 5.10 version, you may wish to discuss when those tools should be removed (on which version), so you can warn users within the application that they will be removed in the next release version: every time they use a deprecated tool, some sort of warn should be shown telling that tool will disappear in the next version.

If they should be removed in v.5.10 (or 6.0), then you should consider adding those warnings in v.5.9

[Beep6581]

Hi @Beep6581 welcome back online. No trouble with COVID-19 I hope?

There are quite some issues tagged v.5.9 for which nothing noteworthy has happened. What is your suggested timeframe?

Hey, no COVID-related issues here.

Shouldn't the next version after 5.9 be "5.10"? Wouldn't "6.0" warrant incompatible changes (like PP4 or something)?

Yes, 5.10 follows 5.9, though non-computer people find 5.10 confusing so it would be nice to break compatibility to warrant 6.0 :)

every time they use a deprecated tool, some sort of warn should be shown telling that tool will disappear in the next version.

No support for that idea from me, I consider that pointless and bloat. There are more urgent things that users should be notified about: #4261 #2899

[Beep6581]

Hey everyone

How are sentiments regarding feature-completeness and stability with regards to releasing 5.9? I see many commits involving wavelet-related stuff, @Desmis let us know when you feel it's feature-complete so we can feature-freeze and go into bugfixing and eventially get 5.9 out the door this year.

[Thanatomanic]

I think we're pretty much feature complete. There are only two things I feel should definitely be included:

• the changes to the Inspect window contain a regression and fix here https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/5872
• Lawrence seems almost done with his enhanced perspective correction tool. #5814 Should be included.

Other than that, the current two PRs on changes to the histogram would be nice-to-have, not need-to-have, imo.

[Beep6581]

"Waveform and vectorscopes" #5887 would be nice to have.

I still need a response from @Desmis regarding "Various improvment to Local adjustments" #5903

[Desmis]

@Beep6581

For "Various improvment to Local adjustments" #5903, the response is with Ingo... @heckflosse

Jacques

[heckflosse]

I think, we should delay #5903 for 6.0. Currently it needs too much memory, which will stress Jacques and me if we merge it now. Better to take some time to improve it before we merge. Jacques, I hope, you don't mind.

[Desmis]

@Beep6581 @heckflosse

No problem for 6.0

Jacques

[Beep6581]

Great, then I will gear up for releasing a 5.9-beta1 soon.

[Desmis]

@Beep6581 I think we need a few more days to work out with Wayne Sutton, the review (in good English) of all the labels and tooltips in Local adjustments... But perhaps, it is not a problem, if some labels or tooltips wil be update after ?

Jacques

[Beep6581]

@Desmis there is no hurry. We need to review and complete the strings first, because if they get translated into e.g. 15 languages and then if changes are required then that's 15 times more work later on.

Could you point me to the branch/issue where you are reviewing the strings?

[Desmis]

@Beep6581

We work on this feature since beginning september 2020.

Similarly, rawpedia has been translated and improved by Wayne Sutton https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Local_controls

Now we are working on tooltips for "softlight & original retinex", "common mask" and "Dynamic range & exposure" in branch "local_tool". I think tomorrow (or perhaps latter) I will merge this branch

I think these tools are finished (labels, tooltips...and fixed bugs), but you can improve if you want

• color and light
• shadows highlight - tone equalizer
• vibrance - warm cool
• log encoding

Tomorrow or just after

• Dynamic range & exposure
• common color mask
• soft light - original retinex

These tools represent about 80% of uses... I think we need about 1 or 2 weeks (perhaps a little more) to finish

And a big thanks to Wayne Sutton for his patience, the relevance of his proposals, the dialogue between us, ....

Jacques

[rom9]

Hi all, sorry for the late comment. Regarding the film negative tool, there's still a lot of brainstorming on Pixls, but if you think it's worth it, i could quickly finalize a version with a minimal set of features, which would bring:

• non-raw file support (aka scanner TIFFs)
• huge speedup for raw files (not having to re-demosaic each time)
• backwards compatibility with PP3 created with previous versions.

...and postpone current experiments / feature request for the next release.

What do you think?

EDIT: just in case, the latest hacks have been rolled back, the branch should now be in a clean state ;-)

[Beep6581]

Hey

In order to get 5.9 out the door, I want to remove all issues from the 5.9 milestone, except for issues marked as documentation - these must be done before a release can be made. If there are any non-documentation issues you require for 5.9, speak now.

[Beep6581]

@Desmis what is your intention regarding your work and 5.9? i.e. is there a point of stability & feature completeness you're aiming for that 5.9 should wait for, or are we at that point now?

[Thanatomanic]

@Beep6581 I am all up for making good work of getting 5.9 out! Could we take, let's say, 1-2 weeks to focus attention on these milestone issues? There are a few bugs that should probably get some attention. Jacques is less available this week anyway.

[Desmis]

@Beep6581 the only point to "wait"...is the PR for "grain"... https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/6120 if no remark, objections....I will merge saturday or sunday

:)

jacques

[Beep6581]

@Thanatomanic could you list here the issues you want to keep, or assign them to yourself? Then I will omit them when removing the others.

@Desmis ok great.

[Thanatomanic]

@Beep6581 Below is my pick of the most important milestone issues. It would be ideal if people assigned to other milestone issues could indicate whether they want to take action, or increase or remove the milestone. But if you want to decide that to speed things up, feel free.

Important things:

• [x] https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/2239 Spot removal tool seems almost done, but needs a good final test round in a PR.
• [ ] https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5319 CR3 metadata support depends on the merging of the exiv2 branch (https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/2256 and PR https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/5889) and update of exiv2 itself which is due in March. Would need testing (although exiv2 works fine in ART). Maybe better left for 5.10 or 6.0, although people will be sorely disappointed that we (still) don't support even the most basic of metadata.
• [ ] https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5899 Better raw histogram (draft available https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/5904, self-assigned). The histogram has seen quite some changes since 5.8 with the addition of the waveform and scopes. The improved raw histogram would greatly complement this.
• [ ] https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5654 Regression in opening Nikon D5100 files
• [ ] Fix inspector related issues (https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5867 https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5946 https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/6111 https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/6115) or (less preferable) revert https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/5593 and https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/5872 for reconsideration.
• [ ] Beside the milestone issues, there are plenty of issues tagged as bugs. If we could have a good bug squashing round before 5.9, that would be great.

Things I'll pick up myself:

• [x] - https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5054 Reset white-balance to camera
• [x] - https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5495 Canon EOS 2000D minor camconst improvements
• [ ] - https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/6052 Resizing navigator (patch provided)
• [ ] - The above-mentioned raw histogram

[Desmis]

@Beep6581 @Thanatomanic @heckflosse @rom9 @Floessie @Pandagrapher @Lawrence37 @TechXavAL @waynesutton50

And others....

Excuse my bad english

What are we waiting ?

I see the comments on the French forums "Rawtherapee is dead"...or the remarks on Pixls.us more and more insistent..."what happens"...The answers given are ambiguous and not very credible....There is a perception (at least for me) of conflict or disagreement within the team

if we make a comparison with DT on the one hand we have a new version practically every 2 months, and for us that will make 15 months !! (while the number of commits is very high)

Admittedly I have withdrawn from the project - partly because of this - but this is not a reason to do nothing.

For me the 2 PR "spot removal" and "trcnew" must be merge.... unless major opposition (these 2 PR are open for several months)

Do we not agree on the aims of RT? If for some of us is that Rawtherappe must be a simpler software..I think it is missed...The place has been taken with brilliance by ART. I think, maybe I'm the only one? that the positioning of RT, now that there is ART is the excellence in areas little explored by other software on the market (such as Wavelet, Ciecam ...)

Jacques

[Thanatomanic]

@Desmis

First of all, I'm going to make a blunt statement, then a more nuanced one. Please bear with me.

Jacques, you have currently withdrawn from the project because you don't like how things are going, because the team seems undecisive, or unresponsive or simply because there is criticism on your proposed feature(s). The way I see it, this leaves you with three options: 1) take charge of the project and lead us forward, 2) leave, fork the project like Alberto and do whatever you want on your own terms, or 3) keep discussing and working together on the nuanced points I make below.

My observations on the project are as follows, as I have said in similar terms on Pixls a few times:

1. There is no clear, broadly agreed vision for RawTherapee (if there ever was any...) Everybody has a personal vision, of course, but these can differ a lot, which inevitably leads to disagreements. A lack of future vision also slowly kills the project if we cannot fill our niche anymore and we lose users (not that we really care, but the competition with darktable for the raw processing niche is strong).
2. There is no clear project manager. At least, not anymore since the beginning of 2020 when the contributions of @Beep6581 strongly diminished (no judgement, just stating facts). I have tried my best to keep the GitHub maintained and jump in for support on Pixls, and although I am willing, I am not able to take on more responsibilities due to time constraints. Besides, I have no idea how to prepare and deploy a release...
3. There is a very small development team. The vast majority of coding is done by Ingo and you (Jacques) and there is definitely still wonderful progress. But there is more to the project than being a "feature factory", and imo there is hardly any time for quality control, bug fixes, usability improvements, etc. Documentation is also an issue for which Xavier contributes a lot.
4. People's available time is limited. This just extends the previous point. Additionally, it can lead to a lot of frustration whenever somebody has much more time (like you, Jacques) than somebody else (like me). You may be thinking "Why is nobody commenting? Does nobody care?" which can lead to "I'll just merge it myself then...". While on the other side you have me thinking "I want to properly comment, because I care, but I don't have time" and then I may forget and after a merge I'm like "Oh, now it's done and there's no going back." and even a little bit of "This is turning into a one-man's project, I don't like that...".

I truly wish we could change this and improve how we function as a team and how we continue to push RawTherapee to become a better program. But right now, I completely understand the sentiment that RawTherapee seems dead when we haven't had a release for more than a year, nor any sort of public update on what is going on behind the scenes. I know we are still enthusiastic for our project, but I am also afraid we are very close to coming to a complete standstill.

I have no solid suggestion on how to change any of this in a significant way, except one which would cost me a lot of time. A simple idea is to try and schedule a Zoom call or something. That way at least we could do a lot of good in terms of getting to know each other and each others motivations. If anybody has other opinions, please share.

[Desmis]

@Thanatomanic Why target a personalized response when my point is general? For points 1) and 2) there is no question of it, given my age (74) and my poor health.

You are forgetting a 4th possibility...that I leave this project permanently.

That leaves 3) which seems to me a way forward.

As for "zoom" or any other live exchange, I will find myself totally isolated given my very poor performance in the language of Shakespeare

Jacques

[heckflosse]

@Desmis

my very poor performance in the language of Shakespeare

In my experience with meeting you in person, you really underrate your english!

[Desmis]

@heckflosse Ingo

I don't think so...Of course, if everybody speak slowly, whithout specific technical language, and with sometimes outside help (in our case your wife Petra... who speaks impeccable French) then that's fine, but for example I am totally unable to understand a video of Andy.... I look at the images :)

[TechXavAL]

@Thanatomanic : I'm sorry but I feel I'm out of anything like Zoom or the likes. I have to constantly look into online translators and English dictionaries to write something understandable, and my spoken English is even worse...

About «RawTherapee is dead», in my opinion anybody saying that is simply an ignorant. Or perhaps too lazy to make a brief search about a development version.

One extra possibility while looking into the future of the project may be doing something similar to other projects:

• there's the option of publishing in http://rawtherapee.com/ the development versions, right away in the front page, or maybe in the downloads page: I see nothing wrong with this, as anybody can already download them from some discuss pages/links. There's nothing to be ashamed for, as it is tagged as «development». And those saying that RT is dead would have to shut up.
• there's the option of changing the «release versioning» into «rolling versioning», completely forgetting about creating stable releases: in my opinion there's little extra advantage between the latest commit previous to a release and the release itself. And even distros like Archlinux work that way, so it's not a crazy idea after all. Even more, any commit works pretty flawlessly in my machine, leaving aside bugs

I also don't like too much the idea of looking «at the competition», and prefer to take care of what makes RT different from the rest (wavelets, Ciecam, capture sharpening, ...), making those tools even better, always polishing them, because if RT doesn't have them, I won't find them anywhere else.

I may be extremely critic with certain features or behaviors on RT, because I don't believe in a collection of tools/features just because nobody else have them. I believe in features/tools/behaviors that make sense, that work as intended, are understood by plain users, and that are intuitive enough from the user point of view: once a feature is added, work on it until it is flawless (leaving bugs aside). And then recheck to be certain it is flawless. After that, you can add another new feature. (But I certainly know that this is not too funny from the developers point of view).

In my opinion, if there are no critical bugs to be fixed, the latest commit could perfectly become the new release.