On 06/11/2014 02:07, Joe Taylor wrote: > Hi Bill, Hi Joe, > > Thanks for sharing your experience with the decoder improvements. I was > waiting for some confirmation from others that the changes are good... > Perhaps now these should be merged into the wsjtx-1.4 branch, so they > can be part of rc3. I tried to review the changes to see how potentially destabilizing they might be but I would have to invest an awful lot more time in understanding the decoding algorithms before I could get close to that. The overall effect feels like a defect repair, after all the -20dB JT9 signals I tested that were previously not decoding seem to me to perfectly valid and good decoding candidates.
I am certainly making rig control changes that could have potentially destabilizing impact. My current criteria is really little more than "Will the change allow more operators to use the application?". Only you can really judge the potential impact on the release stability but I would say put it in. > > -- Joe 73 Bill G4WJS. > > On 11/5/2014 8:47 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Having been focused mainly on v1.4 issues I haven't had much time on air >> recently with the latest code, nice to see ongoing improvements in >> WSJT-X decoding. Joe's latest changes causing JT9 signals that would not >> decode in "Fastest" or "Normal" mode now decoding nicely in all modes. I >> am seeing -20dB signals decoding in a flash in "Fastest" that would only >> decode in "Deepest" mode after a few seconds before. >> >> 73 >> Bill >> G4WJS. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
