jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milamber <milam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release a 3.0
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 23:48:31 GMT
Hello,

For me, the jump to 3.0 must be done for next version.


Remember: JMeter 2.0.0 was release in 2004, so 12 years ago and 23 
versions have been release since!

A lot of works since 2004 on the user interface (the toolbar, sampler 
forms, graphical listener, etc.)

A lot of works under the woods, to improve the JMeter internal 
performance, the samplers like HTTP request (default HC4), the parallel 
resource download, etc)

A lot of works to improve the user experience (like the Regexp tester, 
the templates box, the search on the JMeter tree, log pane, OS 
integration for copy/paste, POST body for WS request, etc.)

Recently, a lot of works on the website to refresh the design (and logo) 
(a lot of this changes will publish on the next release)

IMHO, the bump to JMeter 3.0, exceptionally can not only based on the 
new behaviors since the previous version (N-1) or API changes, but we 
need to consider the works of all developers since 2004. (and after 
change to a new number rules)


Apache JMeter isn't comparable with project like Commons or HTTPClient 
on the versions rules. Commons/HC are mainly use as a framework inside 
another software (like JMeter). JMeter is mainly use a as end user 
software, the API (break/don't break) isn't the alone criteria to change 
the versions number. The UI and the engine must be consider to the next 
release number.

Last reason to change : The users may be confused with a 2.x version 
from 2004 (works only with Java 1.4, some jvm args are now 
incompatibles) and a 2.14 version which require Java 7.


Milamber





On 05/01/2016 11:01, sebb wrote:
> On 4 January 2016 at 18:23, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> First Happy new year 2016 !
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> JMeter does not have a formal policy for major/minor version release
>>> updates.
>>> However historically major veresion changes have been associated with
>>> major changes.
>>>
>> I am proposing to follow what seems to become a standard in versioning
>> refering to a proposal from a scientist working on the subject.
> http://semver.org/ says:
>
> Increment the MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
>
> We are not doing that.
>
>>> Also other ASF projects such as Commons and HttpClient require major
>>> version bumps when removing deprecated code.
>>>
>> So isn't this what we are doing as we dropped 4 classes corresponding to
>> deprecated elements. And we will deprecate some more.
>> But the main idea behind this is that next version contains major features
>> which I think deserve this change.
> What features are you referring to?
>
>>
>>> I don't think the proposed changes warrant a major version bump.
>>>
>> I don't understand, but if we don't come to an agreement I propose to run a
>> vote on this although it would be better to avoid it.
>>
>>> On 3 January 2016 at 15:36, Milamber <milamber@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I agree with a new release with a new version number system, and with the
>>>> next release to become 3.0.
>>>>
>>>> Before the next release, I would like add the HiDPI (high definition
>>> screen)
>>>> for JMeter (for Linux Gnome/GTK and Windows). Currently I works on this.
>>>> (my new computer have a 3200x1800 resolution on a 13' screen, JMeter is
>>> very
>>>> small with the CrossPlatform Swing UI)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/01/2016 15:08, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>> Hi Felix,
>>>>> Thanks for answer.
>>>>> I don't think it will be a long hold on the new release, for me we have
>>>>> these remaining points:
>>>>>
>>>>>      - Integrate HTTPCLIENT 4.5.2 to fix
>>>>>      - 58583 <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583>
>>>>>         - 57319
>>>>>      - Finalize tests
>>>>>      - 57804 => Waiting confirmation from Rainer or any other member
of
>>> the
>>>>>         team
>>>>>         - Deprecation:
>>>>>         - 58791 => I will do it
>>>>>         - Not mandatory but would be nice:
>>>>>         - 58793
>>>>>         - 58790
>>>>>         - 58792 => I will try to stat it
>>>>>         - 58794 => I will start a discussion on this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all for me, but if you see other things feel free to add it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Philippe M.
>>>>>
>>>>> @philmdot
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Felix Schumacher <
>>>>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 01.01.2016 um 19:14 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> Happy new year to the whole team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any news on this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have nothing against a 3.0, but I would not like it, if the "big"
>>>>>> version change would lead to a long hold up of a new release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>    Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> Following my proposals to deprecate a certain number of elements
that
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> approved by 2 commiters and knowing that we have some important
new
>>>>>>>> features in this release, I propose to name next version
3.0 instead
>>> of
>>>>>>>> 2.14.
>>>>>>>> It would be the occasion to make a big cleanup in all "oldies"
>>> elements
>>>>>>>> and maybe be even more aggressive in the deprecations/removals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And starting from there change our release naming to follow
this:
>>>>>>>> - http://semver.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been mentioned by this thread and I think it's a
good idea:
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAFJ7uesG%2BsKiQh_wQ5_iLp%3DJ%2BtSiG5fQ%3D7Pp1CvbJ1kncXo%2B%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>> I think in the developers thinking our current naming is
not great,
>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>> one can think every "major" release we do is a Minor release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Philippe M.
>>>>>>>> @philmdot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
> .
>


Mime
View raw message