jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: When can we start the release of 3.0 ?
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:32:11 GMT
On 12 April 2016 at 18:17, Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <ra0077@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> My opinion is it will be better to merge it for 3.0 because the majority of
> my PR are about HTML report.
>
> And the majority of users will see the HTML report for the first time in
> this release and the first impression is very important.
>
> And if you check my PR you can see:

Sorry, but I don't have time to review the changes.

> modification of label to be consistent with other listener and between
> tables in HTML report
> modification of some axis label to be more accurate (I have add "average"
> to avoid user search in documentation which metric is)
> fix a bug about encoding accent when the HTML report are generated in a
> French OS
>
> It's details but details are very important in my opinion
>
> There are PR for other details (one PR to have a better (for me) IHM,
> another to have another default column sort (more usefull in my opinion)
>
> I am planning to fix other details and add some features for 3.1 release (I
> have take some free time to fix the previous PR to 3.0 release before to
> implement the new one)
>
> Antonio
>
> 2016-04-12 15:17 GMT+02:00 sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12 April 2016 at 13:50, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I cannot merge before thursday evening.
>> > Anybody else can ?
>> > Milamber when do you plan to make the release ?
>> >
>> > Should we merge those or wait for 3.1 ?
>>
>> wait for 3.1
>>
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > On Monday, April 11, 2016, Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <ra0077@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I have made some PR to allow the user have a better experience with 3.0
>> >>
>> >> If it's possible, one of you can check my PR and merge it if it's ok
>> before
>> >> 3.0 release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Antonio
>> >>
>> >> <
>> >>
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2200-b
>> >> >
>> >> Garanti
>> >> sans virus. www.avast.com
>> >> <
>> >>
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2200-b
>> >> >
>> >> <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >>
>> >> 2016-04-04 23:14 GMT+02:00 Milamber <milamber@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 04/04/2016 14:23, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As it appears there is no pending issue to release a 3.0,  any
>> volunteer
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> act as RM for 3.0 ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, with great pleasure for this great new version!
>> >> >
>> >> > I can start a release process next Saturday (or Sunday)
>> >> >
>> >> > Milamber
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> Philippe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sunday, April 3, 2016, Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>> >> <javascript:;>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As suggested by Felix, I think this enhancement can be delayed
to
>> next
>> >> >>> release following 3.0.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If so, @sebb and all, can we start the release process ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Regards
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> >> >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>> >> <javascript:;>');>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On 1 April 2016 at 23:58, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> It's developed.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I know.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Just need to decide which option is best.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Not possible to decide without knowing how expensive
the options
>> are.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> the first option (LRU like) is expensive as per Vladimir
notes.
>> >> >>>> We could reduce cost by dropping every N additions.
>> >> >>>> But bear in mind that cost start to be high when we reach
the
>> limit,
>> >> >>>> without it GC would have a cost as memory would keep increasing.
>> >> >>>> But it is hard to make a comparison
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Option 2 (warn and stop adding) has nearly 0 overhead
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> As I wrote, that needs to be resolved.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But we can delay its integration if needed
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Regardd
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 1 April 2016 at 22:37, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> hello,
>> >> >>>>>>>> I think trunk is now ready for a release.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I see no pending bug and I think 3.0 is
really expected.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> What about the OOM issue?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> That either needs to be resolved or postponed.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Are you ok to start ?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>> Cordialement.
>> >> >>>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>> Cordialement.
>> >> >>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> Cordialement.
>> >> >>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>> Cordialement.
>> >> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cordialement.
>> > Philippe Mouawad.
>>

Mime
View raw message