river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: ServiceDiscoveryManager test coverage
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:49:46 GMT
> I like to check in early and often, but my TaskManager performance project
> has an experimental aspect to it. The TaskManager changes should increase
> concurrency, which may shake out bugs in other code, as well as having their
> own risks. Only benchmarking can prove that a change improves performance -
> intuition and experience are notoriously unreliable predictors.
>

Could not agree more.


> The TaskManager changes should be tested against all runnable tests before
> being checked into the trunk, but that can only be done if they are based on
> a version that passes all runnable tests.
>

See my suggestions in previous email. We should first and foremost establish
a solid baseline that passes as much tests as we can throw at it.


> That all seems to me to be a job for branches.
>

We have "skunk" branches for experimentation.... In fact there is a skunk
branch right now called "NewTaskManager".
This branch should be based off a stable release indeed (see above), not
sure if that is the case with the skunk/NewTaskManager branch.


> Patricia
>

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