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 2.13 ?
Date Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:13:06 GMT
Hi,
I am writing a doc on Graphite Backend listener. I have nearly finished it.
I may make some changes to implementation to add a small feature or change
slightly some behaviour like:
- We don't compute response time metrics for KO samplers but it may be
interesting to have it
- we don't compute threads per thread group

I will try to add it this evening unless you absolutely want to release
this evening.

Regards
On Thursday, February 26, 2015, Milamber <milamber@apache.org> wrote:

>
> It is not necessary to vote to start a new release. Just start a
> discussion for make a new release, and if nobody put a veto (missing
> fixes, wait for a new behavior to commit, etc.) the release process can
> be start.
>
> Thus if everybody are ok, I can start the release process, as the RM,
> next Sunday (1st march).
>
> The re-ordering of the contents in changes page seems a good thing too.
>
> Milamber
>
>
> On 26/02/2015 07:58, Похилько Андрей wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I also have fixed connect time measurements, it was not operational, now
> it works.
> >
> > 26.02.2015, 09:24, "Felix Schumacher" <felix.schumacher@internetallee.de
> <javascript:;>>:
> >> Am 19. Februar 2015 23:53:28 MEZ, schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I fixed what seemed urgent, remaining work (html report) will require
> >>> much
> >>> more time.
> >>> So if we want to release we could start.
> >> +1
> >>> Regarding changes.xml I suggest to change order:
> >>> - New and noteworthy
> >>> - Improvements
> >>> - Bugs
> >>> - Thanks
> >>> - Known issues
> >>>
> >>> As when you read them today, you see bugs before while enhancement are
> >>> usually what makes a product nice.
> >>> Known bugs are at the begining, I find personnaly that it may give a
> >>> bad
> >>> idea of jmeter while almost all of them are due to jdk bugs on some
> >>> systems.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Felix
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, January 30, 2015, Philippe Mouawad
> >>> <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>  Thanks Andrey,
> >>>>  If possible we should fix this one before:
> >>>>  - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57514
> >>>>
> >>>>  And I intend to commit a BackendListener client implementation
> >>> related to
> >>>>  reporting.
> >>>>  See a thread I will start.
> >>>>
> >>>>  Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>  On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> <javascript:;>
> >>>>  <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apc4@ya.ru <javascript:;>');>>
wrote:
> >>>>>  I have committed remote retry feature into trunk. Now I have no
more
> >>>>>  reasons to delay 2.13 release. Instead, I support it to be out
as
> >>> soon
> >>>>>  as it is possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Andrey Pokhilko
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  On 01/25/2015 07:02 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>>>>>  +1 for inclusion (will reconsider once PR is available :-)
)
> >>>>>>  Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  On Sunday, January 25, 2015, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> <javascript:;>
> >>>>>  <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apc4@ya.ru <javascript:;>');>>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>  Ah, I forgot one thing that I wanted to commit in 2.13:
remote
> >>> retry
> >>>>>>>  feature.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  It is needed when you run distributed test with tens of
slaves
> >>> and some
> >>>>>>>  of them fail because of network glitches or other reasons.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  May I do that before starting release process for 2.13?
As usual,
> >>> I'll
> >>>>>>>  show it as GitHub PR first for easy review, and there will
be
> >>> bugzilla
> >>>>>>>  with explanation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  --
> >>>>>>>  Andrey Pokhilko
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  On 01/25/2015 05:11 PM, Milamber wrote:
> >>>>>>>>  Hello,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  +1 for me to release a 2.13 version. (I can act as
RM)
> >>>>>>>>  +1 too for a new property to disable RSTA on Logger
panel before
> >>> the
> >>>>>  new
> >>>>>>>>  release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  Milamber
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  On 25/01/2015 00:20, sebb wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>  OK to name it 2.13 and to release it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  Given that there have been some issues with using
> >>> RSyntaxTextArea, I
> >>>>>>>>>  wonder whether what it provides for the LoggerPanel
is worth
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>  potential disadvantages.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  I have just had a look at the display, and I'm
not sure it
> >>> provides
> >>>>>>>>>  much apart from line numbering..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  I can see that RSTA is beneficial for the GUI fields,
but these
> >>> are
> >>>>>>>>>  generally quite small, whereas the logging panel
can grow
> >>> without
> >>>>>>>>>  bound.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  At the moment the user has no choice as to whether
to use it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  Rather than release 2.13 and hope that the issues
have been
> >>> solved, I
> >>>>>>>>>  think it would be better to at least provide the
option to
> >>> disable
> >>>>>>>>>  RSTA for the LoggerPanel. This could be done with
a property.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  At least then there would be a work round if RSTA
proves
> >>> problematic.
> >>>>>>>>>  On 24 January 2015 at 19:56, Felix Schumacher
> >>>>>>>>>  <felix.schumacher@internetallee.de <javascript:;>
> >>>>>  <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','felix.schumacher@internetallee.de
> <javascript:;>');>
> >>>>>  <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>  Am 24.01.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Hello,
> >>>>>>>>>>>  It appears 2.12 suffers from an OOM in
GUI mode :
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>      -
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
> >>>>>>>>>>>  This OOM seems to be due to RSyntaxTexarea
bug:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>      - https://github.com/bobbylight/RSyntaxTextArea/issues/99
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  It appeared after the rework of LoggerPanel#processEvent
way
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>  appending
> >>>>>>>>>>>  event.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Now that it receivs log event even when
closed this OOM has
> >>> more
> >>>>>>>  chances
> >>>>>>>>>>>  to
> >>>>>>>>>>>  appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  I reverted to 2.11 way of appending events
to fix OOM waiting
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>  answer
> >>>>>>>>>>>  from rsyntaxtarea project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  There was also a bug in the way limit=0
was set that had no
> >>>>>  effect, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>  fixed
> >>>>>>>>>>>  it as part of the bug.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  There is a workaround which is to set:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  - jmeter.loggerpanel.enable_when_closed=false
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  But if user opens panel, OOM will occur
if lot of logs occur
> >>>>>>>  (specially if
> >>>>>>>>>>>  stacktraces).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  If we release, it cannot be named 2.12.1
because we have some
> >>>>>  "big?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>  features in this versions so it would not
be a minor one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Regarding the frequency and impact of this
bug, in our
> >>> company I
> >>>>>  had 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>  reports in 5 days of this OOM so I think
it is not to be
> >>> ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>>>>>  +1 to release 2.13. I don't think a we should
go for 2.x.y.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>  Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>   Felix
> >>>>  --
> >>>>  Cordialement.
> >>>>  Philippe Mouawad.
>
>

-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

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