jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milamber <milam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release time ?
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:48:06 GMT
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <milamber@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> >> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
> >> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
> >> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
> >> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
> >>
> >
> > Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
> > with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
> > (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
> > this wiki page")
> >
> > I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>
> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
> release archives.
>


I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because :

* JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before
the new release (or download a nightly build)
* Easy to update / publish (and before the release)
I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or
developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors
before release.

The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki
page.

Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary
section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all
releases tarballs?

Milamber



>
> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
>
> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
> level with even more details.
>
> But not a Wiki page.
>
> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
> > Milamber
> >
> >> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
> to
> >> bugzilla in details ?
> >>
> >> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
> >> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
> >>
> >>    -
> >>
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
> >>
> >>
> >> What's your opinion ?
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> >>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> >>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
> things
> >>> in a future 2.5.2.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Philippe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
> since
> >>>>>>
> >>>> last
> >>>>
> >>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
> >>>>>
> >>>> requests"
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in
the
> >>>>>
> >>>> first
> >>>>
> >>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
> >>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
> >>>>>
> >>>> would be
> >>>>
> >>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles
to
> try
> >>>>>
> >>>> it
> >>>>
> >>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
> >>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and
so
> >>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rainer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cordialement.
> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message