jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Milamber <milam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release 2.13 ?
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:54:59 GMT

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>:
>> Am 19. Februar 2015 23:53:28 MEZ, schrieb Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>:
>>> 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>
>>> 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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apc4@ya.ru');>> 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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apc4@ya.ru');>> 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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','felix.schumacher@internetallee.de');>
>>>>>  <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.


Mime
View raw message