Reason: see my comment above.

Thank you for looking into that. Let's discuss it further in the next meeting, but I think we should try to get it available in the next release.
For Boundingboxes, I would align with the Bounding Box interactions we have to build up at some point for generating detection labels.

Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: feature/T30294-Remove_LabelSet_class.

I think the slicer plugin is not so interesting, but the MedSAM branch it used LiteMedSAM https://github.com/bowang-lab/MedSAM/blob/LiteMedSAM/README.md.

I think I found the problem while doing the refactoring of the LabelSetImage (T30294). Should be verified as soon as T30294 is tested/merged.

Closed, we put everythin in own installer and solve it by configuration:
T30284
T30310

@fedorov I added you to "warn" 😉 you, that will join the effort. Great idea!

@kompan Could you check if this is still a problem/can be replicated, as you look into the fit inspector view anyways. If it cannot be reproduce, we know at least that we may close it for good.

This could be potentially solved with T30293 if we also provide a writer (at least a very simple one that does the old style, besides that change.

@gaoh With that already help you? Especially the last option with in file property lists and modify mode?
I would like to keep it in XML for now because it’s much faster to realize as we do not have to change complete reader infrastructure.

@gaoh PLease feel free to reopen if there is still a problem.

Thats because 3D Tools in total do not support undo redo currently.
Sofar we havent dared due to the memory footprint (as it would mean storing copies of the volume); but also never tested it.
May be we should ceck if it is OK in conjunction with compression (introduced by @kislinsk some time ago) and if needed limitations (a max step limit, or clearing the history if the segmentation is finished), to avoid extrem memory consumption due to long undo/redo history.

I would lean to adding a preference "allow unsupported models" (default ==false). If people activate it, they can see all models (that are not blacklisted) and not just the white listed (verified) once.
If the risk is communicated and users are willing to take it, then I would not actively prevent people from using models (as long as they don't crash MITK or so).

We should also have a look on eMITK plugins. Maybe not for that release, but for the next.
E.g. would the MRI tools make sense?
SUV would also be a candidate... may RT (but there we have to double check the state...

So now we have to clarify the name for the bigger edition. And if we want to have just one extended edition or if we will in the end have it focused on topics. As we only have currently fitting stuf added.

In T29454#254381, @kompan wrote:

NOT included will be (@floca as far is I understood these plugins were tailored for specific applications and are not really of interest to the users in general, correct? ):

• org.mitk.gui.qt.fit.demo
• org.mitk.gui.qt.pharmacokinetics.simulation

Pushed new branch to rMITK MITK: feature/T30222-MatchImageMiniApp_add_parameter_support.

Not clear when and how it happens. Need to narrow it down more.

This task can be potentially closed after T30149 is handled (that one should be done first).

most likely it is due to wrong locales in the out stream operation on your OS. You have ',' in your file where '.' should be.