jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release time ?
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:46:51 GMT
Hello,
I agrée Changes.XML is very useful.
Maybe Summary of main changes could contain more screenshots of new things
. Is this ok for you Sebb ?

Regards
Philippe

On Monday, December 5, 2011, 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.
>
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

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