Thomas Beutlich

> @beutlich we are not planning any release of MSL 4.0.1, are we? That's what you wrote to MAP-Lib members on 2024-01-16: > Regarding the MSL4.0.1 milestone , there were...

Broken by 839ab4de9c84a4a9bcbf070708f982969c84b484 for #4306. Not sure if the protected section was modified on purpose or accident. Given the commit message it does not look a necessary change.

Duplicate of #4349 (does not matter if new or altered models) and already resolved in https://github.com/beutlich/MAP-LIB_ReferenceResults/blob/v4.1.0/ModelicaTest/MultiBody/Forces/EngineGasForce/EngineGasForce.csv where gasForce.dens no longer is listed in the simulation result CSV file. Can you...

> Not a duplicate, the other issue is about new models. It is a duplicate in the sense that https://github.com/beutlich/MAP-LIB_ReferenceResults gives you both the new and the altered results. Anyway,...

Hm, I have to admit I am even more confused. Are you asking for the (as previously done) manual job of running the simulation of a _tagged_ release in Dymola...

> Anyway, take it or leave it Better leave it. After spending some more time on https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/issues/4343 I only noticed now that some of the simulation result is no longer...

There are three options here I see: 1. Short term: Remove the functions that depend on locally defined array dimensions. 1. Short term: Remove the Modelica_ prefix to state that...

@HansOlsson Should we add option (3) as short term standardization issue then?

@sjoelund Can you please check if there are still false-positive findings in GenerateDoc.mos? Thanks.

@tobolar Please see my comment above^^ where I asked @sjoelund about false-positive findings in GenerateDoc.mos. That's the latest news I have for you.