You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jmeter.apache.org by Philippe Mouawad <p....@ubik-ingenierie.com> on 2018/07/05 20:47:19 UTC
Release 5.0 ?
Hello,
We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
- https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
milestone=JMETER_4.1
<https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_milestone=JMETER_4.1>
I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
- Flow Control Action
- Result Status Action
- Iterating Controllers
If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
bugfixes.
We'd like tests and feedback from users.
If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build tomorrow:
- https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
Test particularly:
- Recording
- Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
- Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of current
loop)
- While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
We'll be waiting for 10 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards.
Philippe M.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Regarding GPG signing, I use a removable drive to hold the private key.
Provide the path name on the Ant command line:
-Dgpg.secretKeyring=path-to-keyring
On macos one can also use a password protected disk image file which
is only mounted when needed.
For Maven passwords (e.g. Nexus upload) one can use the relocation
feature in ~/.m2/settings-security.xml:
<settingsSecurity>
<relocation>path to real settings-security.xml</relocation>
</settingsSecurity>
Note that it is vital that the signing is done on the user's own system.
** Check with Infra, but I think they also require the build to be
done on the user's system. **
Regarding svnmucc on macos, I think I used the WANDisco build which includes it.
On 30 August 2018 at 10:41, Vladimir Sitnikov
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Milamber>I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
> rc_upload/publish.
>
> Sorry, I just made a couple of typos in "Ant".
> I'm sure there are lots of possibilities to make Ant gpg sign automated,
> and we need to investigate if that is possible to do that in Apache.
>
> Milamber>Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I
> don't
> know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>
> maven-javadoc-plugin has failOnWarnings=true
> <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc-parent-poms/commit/597fdbe445d1d1defda5032ba64322b1c16d3cce>
> option, and it works.
> I'm sure Ant has something similar.
>
> Milamber>Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
> and
> Milamber>that's no missing (new) files.
>
> It looks like final decision has to be made by a human, however it does
> sound like a #2 from my mail.
> That is staging archive preparation could be made automatic.
> On top of that, it could prepare a report for "new, deleted" files, for the
> files that have dramatic changes in sizes, and it could flag "file flag
> changes" (e.g. executable-plain) as well.
>
> Milamber>+1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
> ASF
> Milamber>login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
> way
> Milamber>already exists (I can do this if you want)
>
> It would be great if you could do that.
>
> Vladimir
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com>.
Milamber>I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
rc_upload/publish.
Sorry, I just made a couple of typos in "Ant".
I'm sure there are lots of possibilities to make Ant gpg sign automated,
and we need to investigate if that is possible to do that in Apache.
Milamber>Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I
don't
know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
maven-javadoc-plugin has failOnWarnings=true
<https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc-parent-poms/commit/597fdbe445d1d1defda5032ba64322b1c16d3cce>
option, and it works.
I'm sure Ant has something similar.
Milamber>Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
and
Milamber>that's no missing (new) files.
It looks like final decision has to be made by a human, however it does
sound like a #2 from my mail.
That is staging archive preparation could be made automatic.
On top of that, it could prepare a report for "new, deleted" files, for the
files that have dramatic changes in sizes, and it could flag "file flag
changes" (e.g. executable-plain) as well.
Milamber>+1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
ASF
Milamber>login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
way
Milamber>already exists (I can do this if you want)
It would be great if you could do that.
Vladimir
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
I've completed New and Noteworthy section.
Regards
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:18 PM Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'll be filling the new and noteworthy section but help is welcome.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:46 PM Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Great.
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:42 PM Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/09/2018 20:44, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> > We now have 90 enhancements/bugfixes.
>>> >
>>> > The flaky nightly builds are now fine since the bug was fixed.
>>> >
>>> > So I think we can safely release this long awaited 5.0 version.
>>> >
>>> > @Milamber <ma...@gmail.com> , are you still ok for
>>> > creating the release ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I can do the release this sunday.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:23 AM Milamber <milamber@apache.org
>>> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>>> > > Milamber>credentials must be provided
>>> > >
>>> > > Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
>>> > rc_upload/publish.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need
>>> > an human
>>> > > checks
>>> > > Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
>>> > >
>>> > > What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
>>> > > Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
>>> >
>>> > Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I
>>> don't
>>> > know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > What do you mean by "archive checks"?
>>> >
>>> > Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
>>> > and
>>> > that's no missing (new) files.
>>> >
>>> > > Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
>>> > > 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
>>> > > 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world
>>> > check if
>>> > > artifacts run on their machines)
>>> > > 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally
>>> > available
>>> > >
>>> > > I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
>>> >
>>> > Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool
>>> > (every
>>> > day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
>>> >
>>> > > Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for
>>> > emergency cases,
>>> > > however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
>>> > >
>>> > > It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release
>>> > though,
>>> > > however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is
>>> > used
>>> > > during regular CI.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build
>>> > environment on
>>> > his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
>>> > The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform
>>> > and all
>>> > building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
>>> >
>>> > > Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
>>> > > I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain
>>> two
>>> > > different ways of building JMeter.
>>> > >
>>> > > Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
>>> > > Philippe> - jenkins job ?
>>> > >
>>> > > I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store
>>> > private part
>>> > > of GPG key somewhere".
>>> > > For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
>>> > > https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It
>>> assembles a
>>> > > artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them
>>> > to Maven
>>> > > Central.
>>> > >
>>> > > For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
>>> > >
>>> > > The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related
>>> > with "site
>>> > > update".
>>> > > That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme".
>>> > Good-looking
>>> > > "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
>>> > >
>>> > > For pgjdbc we have a script
>>> > > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh>
>>> that
>>> > > automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the
>>> > CHANGELOG.md
>>> > > (which is populated manually with notable changes)
>>> > > Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
>>> > >
>>> > <
>>> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60
>>> >
>>> > > to populate the list of contributors in release notes
>>> > >
>>> > > Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
>>> >
>>> > +1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
>>> > ASF
>>> > login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
>>> > way
>>> > already exists (I can do this if you want)
>>> >
>>> > Milamber
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Vladimir
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Cordialement.
>>> > Philippe Mouawad.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
I'll be filling the new and noteworthy section but help is welcome.
Regards
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:46 PM Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Great.
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:42 PM Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 06/09/2018 20:44, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > We now have 90 enhancements/bugfixes.
>> >
>> > The flaky nightly builds are now fine since the bug was fixed.
>> >
>> > So I think we can safely release this long awaited 5.0 version.
>> >
>> > @Milamber <ma...@gmail.com> , are you still ok for
>> > creating the release ?
>>
>>
>> Yes I can do the release this sunday.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:23 AM Milamber <milamber@apache.org
>> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>> > > Milamber>credentials must be provided
>> > >
>> > > Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
>> > rc_upload/publish.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need
>> > an human
>> > > checks
>> > > Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
>> > >
>> > > What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
>> > > Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
>> >
>> > Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I don't
>> > know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > What do you mean by "archive checks"?
>> >
>> > Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
>> > and
>> > that's no missing (new) files.
>> >
>> > > Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
>> > > 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
>> > > 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world
>> > check if
>> > > artifacts run on their machines)
>> > > 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally
>> > available
>> > >
>> > > I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
>> >
>> > Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool
>> > (every
>> > day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
>> >
>> > > Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for
>> > emergency cases,
>> > > however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
>> > >
>> > > It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release
>> > though,
>> > > however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is
>> > used
>> > > during regular CI.
>> >
>> >
>> > I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build
>> > environment on
>> > his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
>> > The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform
>> > and all
>> > building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
>> >
>> > > Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
>> > > I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain
>> two
>> > > different ways of building JMeter.
>> > >
>> > > Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
>> > > Philippe> - jenkins job ?
>> > >
>> > > I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store
>> > private part
>> > > of GPG key somewhere".
>> > > For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
>> > > https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It
>> assembles a
>> > > artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them
>> > to Maven
>> > > Central.
>> > >
>> > > For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
>> > >
>> > > The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related
>> > with "site
>> > > update".
>> > > That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme".
>> > Good-looking
>> > > "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
>> > >
>> > > For pgjdbc we have a script
>> > > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh>
>> that
>> > > automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the
>> > CHANGELOG.md
>> > > (which is populated manually with notable changes)
>> > > Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
>> > >
>> > <
>> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60
>> >
>> > > to populate the list of contributors in release notes
>> > >
>> > > Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
>> >
>> > +1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
>> > ASF
>> > login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
>> > way
>> > already exists (I can do this if you want)
>> >
>> > Milamber
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Vladimir
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cordialement.
>> > Philippe Mouawad.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Great.
Thanks
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:42 PM Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/09/2018 20:44, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> > Hello,
> > We now have 90 enhancements/bugfixes.
> >
> > The flaky nightly builds are now fine since the bug was fixed.
> >
> > So I think we can safely release this long awaited 5.0 version.
> >
> > @Milamber <ma...@gmail.com> , are you still ok for
> > creating the release ?
>
>
> Yes I can do the release this sunday.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:23 AM Milamber <milamber@apache.org
> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > > Milamber>credentials must be provided
> > >
> > > Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
> >
> >
> > I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
> > rc_upload/publish.
> >
> > >
> > > Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need
> > an human
> > > checks
> > > Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
> > >
> > > What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
> > > Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
> >
> > Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I don't
> > know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "archive checks"?
> >
> > Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
> > and
> > that's no missing (new) files.
> >
> > > Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
> > > 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
> > > 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world
> > check if
> > > artifacts run on their machines)
> > > 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally
> > available
> > >
> > > I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
> >
> > Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool
> > (every
> > day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
> >
> > > Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for
> > emergency cases,
> > > however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
> > >
> > > It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release
> > though,
> > > however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is
> > used
> > > during regular CI.
> >
> >
> > I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build
> > environment on
> > his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
> > The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform
> > and all
> > building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
> >
> > > Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
> > > I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain
> two
> > > different ways of building JMeter.
> > >
> > > Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
> > > Philippe> - jenkins job ?
> > >
> > > I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store
> > private part
> > > of GPG key somewhere".
> > > For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
> > > https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It assembles
> a
> > > artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them
> > to Maven
> > > Central.
> > >
> > > For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
> > >
> > > The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related
> > with "site
> > > update".
> > > That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme".
> > Good-looking
> > > "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
> > >
> > > For pgjdbc we have a script
> > > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh>
> that
> > > automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the
> > CHANGELOG.md
> > > (which is populated manually with notable changes)
> > > Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
> > >
> > <
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60
> >
> > > to populate the list of contributors in release notes
> > >
> > > Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
> >
> > +1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
> > ASF
> > login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
> > way
> > already exists (I can do this if you want)
> >
> > Milamber
> >
> > >
> > > Vladimir
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
> >
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On 06/09/2018 20:44, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> Hello,
> We now have 90 enhancements/bugfixes.
>
> The flaky nightly builds are now fine since the bug was fixed.
>
> So I think we can safely release this long awaited 5.0 version.
>
> @Milamber <ma...@gmail.com> , are you still ok for
> creating the release ?
Yes I can do the release this sunday.
>
>
> Regards
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:23 AM Milamber <milamber@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > Milamber>credentials must be provided
> >
> > Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
>
>
> I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
> rc_upload/publish.
>
> >
> > Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need
> an human
> > checks
> > Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
> >
> > What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
> > Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
>
> Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I don't
> know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>
>
> >
> > What do you mean by "archive checks"?
>
> Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files
> and
> that's no missing (new) files.
>
> > Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
> > 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
> > 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world
> check if
> > artifacts run on their machines)
> > 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally
> available
> >
> > I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
>
> Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool
> (every
> day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
>
> > Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for
> emergency cases,
> > however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
> >
> > It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release
> though,
> > however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is
> used
> > during regular CI.
>
>
> I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build
> environment on
> his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
> The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform
> and all
> building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
>
> > Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
> > I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain two
> > different ways of building JMeter.
> >
> > Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
> > Philippe> - jenkins job ?
> >
> > I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store
> private part
> > of GPG key somewhere".
> > For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
> > https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It assembles a
> > artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them
> to Maven
> > Central.
> >
> > For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
> >
> > The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related
> with "site
> > update".
> > That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme".
> Good-looking
> > "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
> >
> > For pgjdbc we have a script
> > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh> that
> > automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the
> CHANGELOG.md
> > (which is populated manually with notable changes)
> > Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
> >
> <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60>
> > to populate the list of contributors in release notes
> >
> > Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
>
> +1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and
> ASF
> login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a
> way
> already exists (I can do this if you want)
>
> Milamber
>
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
We now have 90 enhancements/bugfixes.
The flaky nightly builds are now fine since the bug was fixed.
So I think we can safely release this long awaited 5.0 version.
@Milamber <mi...@gmail.com> , are you still ok for creating the
release ?
Regards
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:23 AM Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > Milamber>credentials must be provided
> >
> > Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
>
>
> I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
> rc_upload/publish.
>
> >
> > Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need an human
> > checks
> > Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
> >
> > What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
> > Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
>
> Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I don't
> know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>
>
> >
> > What do you mean by "archive checks"?
>
> Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files and
> that's no missing (new) files.
>
> > Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
> > 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
> > 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world check if
> > artifacts run on their machines)
> > 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally available
> >
> > I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
>
> Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool (every
> day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
>
> > Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for emergency
> cases,
> > however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
> >
> > It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release though,
> > however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is used
> > during regular CI.
>
>
> I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build environment on
> his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
> The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform and all
> building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
>
> > Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
> > I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain two
> > different ways of building JMeter.
> >
> > Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
> > Philippe> - jenkins job ?
> >
> > I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store private
> part
> > of GPG key somewhere".
> > For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
> > https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It assembles a
> > artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them to Maven
> > Central.
> >
> > For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
> >
> > The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related with
> "site
> > update".
> > That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme". Good-looking
> > "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
> >
> > For pgjdbc we have a script
> > <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh> that
> > automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the CHANGELOG.md
> > (which is populated manually with notable changes)
> > Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
> > <
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60
> >
> > to populate the list of contributors in release notes
> >
> > Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
>
> +1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and ASF
> login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a way
> already exists (I can do this if you want)
>
> Milamber
>
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On 29/08/2018 11:52, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> Milamber>credentials must be provided
>
> Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
I don't talk about maven, but the steps about gpg sign and ant
rc_upload/publish.
>
> Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need an human
> checks
> Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
>
> What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
> Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
Currently a javadoc warning don't stop the release creation. I don't
know if we can configure to stop if a warning occur.
>
> What do you mean by "archive checks"?
Verify that the source and binary archives contains the good files and
that's no missing (new) files.
> Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
> 1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
> 2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world check if
> artifacts run on their machines)
> 3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally available
>
> I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
Yes the #1 (ant distribution task) can be done by any build tool (every
day if we want have a project "ready to distribute")
> Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for emergency cases,
> however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
>
> It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release though,
> however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is used
> during regular CI.
I mention Docker to help the developer to have an build environment on
his machine independently to the operating system of his machine.
The ASF build environment (jenkins) is already on linux platform and all
building tools are present. No need to use Docker to regular CI.
> Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
> I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain two
> different ways of building JMeter.
>
> Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
> Philippe> - jenkins job ?
>
> I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store private part
> of GPG key somewhere".
> For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
> https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It assembles a
> artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them to Maven
> Central.
>
> For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
>
> The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related with "site
> update".
> That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme". Good-looking
> "notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
>
> For pgjdbc we have a script
> <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh> that
> automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the CHANGELOG.md
> (which is populated manually with notable changes)
> Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
> <https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60>
> to populate the list of contributors in release notes
>
> Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
+1 if we could find the good way to manage the credential (gpg and ASF
login/pass). Perhaps ask to the Infra team or ASF member list if a way
already exists (I can do this if you want)
Milamber
>
> Vladimir
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com>.
Milamber>credentials must be provided
Maven can read credentials from settings.xml, etc, etc.
Milamber>Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need an human
checks
Milamber>(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
What is the point of manually checking javadoc warnings?
Could we just fail the build if javadoc warnings are present?
What do you mean by "archive checks"?
Of course we want to have multi-stage process like:
1) Prepare release candidate artifacts
2) Manually inspect them (e.g. people from all over the world check if
artifacts run on their machines)
3) Hit "promote" button that would make the release generally available
I think #1 could be automated via Jenkins/Travis kind of job.
Of course "jmeter/ReleaseCreation" page could be kept for emergency cases,
however it is a pity the release procedure is so hard to follow.
It does not matter much if we use Docker or not for the release though,
however I find it is better to use the same set of tools that is used
during regular CI.
Do we use Docker for regular CI checks?
I don't think so. That is why I think we do not want to maintain two
different ways of building JMeter.
Philippe> - how could we improve ?:
Philippe> - jenkins job ?
I guess the question boils down to: "is it acceptable to store private part
of GPG key somewhere".
For pgjdbc I use Travis as a release job:
https://travis-ci.org/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/builds/421151967 It assembles a
artifacts (builds for different Java versions) and uploads them to Maven
Central.
For JMeter, Apache Jenkins job might be good.
The most complicated steps to automate in my opinion are related with "site
update".
That is "update changelog", "update versions in readme". Good-looking
"notable changes" page can hardly be automated.
For pgjdbc we have a script
<https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/release_notes.sh> that
automatically creates "... released" web pages based on the CHANGELOG.md
(which is populated manually with notable changes)
Well, we even fetch contributor names from GitHub automatically
<https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/d43398a5d4c173da40e8f283f9e5fe20a971de5c/release_notes_filter.pl#L47-L60>
to populate the list of contributors in release notes
Of course it takes a while to setup, however I think it pays off.
Vladimir
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On 28/08/2018 19:58, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> Hello,
> Pinging again on this.
> JMeter 4.0 is now 6 month away and we have a very decent version with 39
> Enhancements and 45 Bug fixes.
>
> The pending issues already existed and are not blocking IMO. I've been
> using JMeter 5.0 for load testing without issue.
>
> 1/ When can we start the release process ?
When we decide together. This week if PMCs are agree.
> 2/ I think it would also be a good occasion to look with a critical eye at
> this release process to find ways to reduce its complexity and duration
>
> - too manual, too much setup:
> - See https://wiki.apache.org/jmeter/ReleaseCreation
> - I for example would like to do this one time but I am on mac and
> don't want to scratch my head just to find and install svnmucc
You can setup a linux virtual machine or a linux docker container into
your mac, and make the release distribution.
> - every time there is at least a RC0 that is burnt because of some
> manual step or a broken file svn:eol....
You're right. A lot of steps are manual...
> - how could we improve ?:
> - jenkins job ?
> - docker image for release ?
> - Other ideas ?
If you looks the release steps, you can see a lot of steps with the need
of an authentication : svn, maven upload, RC gpg sign. So if you want
automate these, that would be difficult (or not possible) because the
credentials must be provided.
Thus, a lot of steps are manual because the step need an human checks
(javadoc warning, archive checks, RAT report, etc)
And some steps are manual and (AFAIK) cannot be automate like the Nexus
release action
Perhaps add a Dockerfile to the project can help to have an local build
environment without the matter of OS of the developer machine. (we have
this way under the CloudStack project)
Otherwise, migrate the project to apache gitbox/github could provide a
different way to build the release and perhaps reduce some manual steps.
Milamber
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 5:19 PM Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018, Felix Schumacher <
>> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 2. August 2018 19:37:27 GMT+01:00 schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi Felix,
>>>> Did you have time to look at this ?
>>> Sorry, haven't found the time, yet. But I think I had to add a listener
>>> (probably result tree view) to get the exceptions.
>>
>> I guess issue exists since many versions, should it block release ?
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@
>>>>> internetallee.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
>>>>>>> We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
>>>>>> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed
>>>> load
>>>>>> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
>>>>>> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try
>>>> to
>>>>>> bind to the same fixed port.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
>>>>> I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
>>>>> Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
>>>>> Which ones ?
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a
>>>> thread
>>>>>> group. I think this is odd, at least
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once
>>>> in
>>>>>> a test run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
>>>>>> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the
>>>> other
>>>>>> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would
>>>> be a
>>>>>> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that
>>>> appears
>>>>>> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this
>>>> case
>>>>>> can wait.
>>>>>>
>>>>> yes, ok for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
>>>>>>> We haven't released since
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for feedback.
>>>>>>>> Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> compare it with the value we advertise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> downloading
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>> Which file did you download and from which link ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run
>>>> due
>>>>>>>>>>> to missing
>>>>>>>>>>> files in bin folder as
>>>>>>>>>>> jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>>>>>>> p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in
>>>> trunk
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>>>>>>>>>>>> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>>>>>>>>>>>> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution=FIXED&target_
>>>>>>>>>>>> milestone=JMETER_4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>>>>>>>>>>>> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>>>>>>>>>>>> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>>>>>>>>>>>> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>>>>>>>>>> resolution=FIXED&target_
>>>>>>>>>>>> milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests
>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>>> to :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Flow Control Action
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Result Status Action
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Iterating Controllers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>> content:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
>>>>>>>>>>>> enhancements /
>>>>>>>>>>>> bugfixes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you'd like to help testing, you can download a
>>>> nightly
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Test particularly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Recording
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
>>>>>>>>>>>> iteration of
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> loop)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
>>>>>>>>>>>> Controller
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippe M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
Pinging again on this.
JMeter 4.0 is now 6 month away and we have a very decent version with 39
Enhancements and 45 Bug fixes.
The pending issues already existed and are not blocking IMO. I've been
using JMeter 5.0 for load testing without issue.
1/ When can we start the release process ?
2/ I think it would also be a good occasion to look with a critical eye at
this release process to find ways to reduce its complexity and duration
- too manual, too much setup:
- See https://wiki.apache.org/jmeter/ReleaseCreation
- I for example would like to do this one time but I am on mac and
don't want to scratch my head just to find and install svnmucc
- every time there is at least a RC0 that is burnt because of some
manual step or a broken file svn:eol....
- how could we improve ?:
- jenkins job ?
- docker image for release ?
- Other ideas ?
Regards
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 5:19 PM Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 2. August 2018 19:37:27 GMT+01:00 schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>:
>> >Hi Felix,
>> >Did you have time to look at this ?
>>
>> Sorry, haven't found the time, yet. But I think I had to add a listener
>> (probably result tree view) to get the exceptions.
>
>
> I guess issue exists since many versions, should it block release ?
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Felix
>>
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@
>> >> internetallee.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>> >>> > Hello,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
>> >>> > We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
>> >>>
>> >>> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed
>> >load
>> >>> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
>> >>> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try
>> >to
>> >>> bind to the same fixed port.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
>> >>
>> >> I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
>> >> Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
>> >>
>> >> It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Which ones ?
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a
>> >thread
>> >>> group. I think this is odd, at least
>> >>>
>> >>> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once
>> >in
>> >>> a test run
>> >>>
>> >>> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
>> >>> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the
>> >other
>> >>> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
>> >>>
>> >>> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would
>> >be a
>> >>> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that
>> >appears
>> >>> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this
>> >case
>> >>> can wait.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> yes, ok for me.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Felix
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
>> >>> > We haven't released since
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >>> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > Thanks for feedback.
>> >>> > > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
>> >>> > > and
>> >>> > > compare it with the value we advertise.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Regards
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
>> >>> > > > with
>> >>> > > > downloading
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Thank you
>> >>> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >>> > > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > > Hello,
>> >>> > > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > Thank you
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > Hi
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run
>> >due
>> >>> > > > > > to missing
>> >>> > > > > > files in bin folder as
>> >>> > > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > FYI
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >>> > > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > Hello,
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in
>> >trunk
>> >>> > > > > > > that
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > would
>> >>> > > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> >>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> >>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> >>> > > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> >>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
>> >>> > > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> >>> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> >>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> >>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> >>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests
>> >related
>> >>> > > > > > > to :
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action
>> >>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action
>> >>> > > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
>> >>> > > > > > > released.
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
>> >>> > > > > > > following
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > content:
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >---------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> > > > > > > ---
>> >>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
>> >>> > > > > > > enhancements /
>> >>> > > > > > > bugfixes.
>> >>> > > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>> >>> > > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a
>> >nightly
>> >>> > > > > > > build
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > tomorrow:
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > Test particularly:
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > - Recording
>> >>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>> >>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
>> >>> > > > > > > iteration of
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > current
>> >>> > > > > > > loop)
>> >>> > > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
>> >>> > > > > > > Controller
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >---------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> > > > > > > ---
>> >>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> >>> > > > > > > --
>> >>> > > > > > > Regards.
>> >>> > > > > > > Philippe M.
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > --
>> >>> > > > > Cordialement.
>> >>> > > > > Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > --
>> >>> > > Cordialement.
>> >>> > > Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cordialement.
>> >> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Saturday, August 4, 2018, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>
> Am 2. August 2018 19:37:27 GMT+01:00 schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>:
> >Hi Felix,
> >Did you have time to look at this ?
>
> Sorry, haven't found the time, yet. But I think I had to add a listener
> (probably result tree view) to get the exceptions.
I guess issue exists since many versions, should it block release ?
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@
> >> internetallee.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> >>> > Hello,
> >>> >
> >>> > @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
> >>> > We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
> >>>
> >>> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed
> >load
> >>> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
> >>> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try
> >to
> >>> bind to the same fixed port.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
> >>
> >> I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
> >> Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
> >>
> >> It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which ones ?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a
> >thread
> >>> group. I think this is odd, at least
> >>>
> >>> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once
> >in
> >>> a test run
> >>>
> >>> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
> >>> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the
> >other
> >>> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
> >>>
> >>> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would
> >be a
> >>> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that
> >appears
> >>> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this
> >case
> >>> can wait.
> >>>
> >>
> >> yes, ok for me.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Felix
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
> >>> > We haven't released since
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Thanks for feedback.
> >>> > > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
> >>> > > and
> >>> > > compare it with the value we advertise.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Regards
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
> >>> > > > with
> >>> > > > downloading
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thank you
> >>> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>> > > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Hello,
> >>> > > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Thank you
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Hi
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run
> >due
> >>> > > > > > to missing
> >>> > > > > > files in bin folder as
> >>> > > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > FYI
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>> > > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > Hello,
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in
> >trunk
> >>> > > > > > > that
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > would
> >>> > > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> >>> > > > > > >
> >status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> >>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> >>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> >>> > > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> >>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> >>> > > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> >>> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> >>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> >>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> >>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests
> >related
> >>> > > > > > > to :
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action
> >>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action
> >>> > > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
> >>> > > > > > > released.
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
> >>> > > > > > > following
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > content:
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > > > > > > ---
> >>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
> >>> > > > > > > enhancements /
> >>> > > > > > > bugfixes.
> >>> > > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> >>> > > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a
> >nightly
> >>> > > > > > > build
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > tomorrow:
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > Test particularly:
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > - Recording
> >>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> >>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
> >>> > > > > > > iteration of
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > current
> >>> > > > > > > loop)
> >>> > > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
> >>> > > > > > > Controller
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > > > > > > ---
> >>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> >>> > > > > > > --
> >>> > > > > > > Regards.
> >>> > > > > > > Philippe M.
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > Cordialement.
> >>> > > > > Philippe Mouawad.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Cordialement.
> >>> > > Philippe Mouawad.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cordialement.
> >> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am 2. August 2018 19:37:27 GMT+01:00 schrieb Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>:
>Hi Felix,
>Did you have time to look at this ?
Sorry, haven't found the time, yet. But I think I had to add a listener (probably result tree view) to get the exceptions.
Regards,
Felix
>
>Thanks
>
>On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@
>> internetallee.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
>>> > We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
>>>
>>> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed
>load
>>> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
>>> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try
>to
>>> bind to the same fixed port.
>>>
>>> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
>>
>> I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
>> Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
>>
>> It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
>>>
>>
>> Which ones ?
>>
>>>
>>> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a
>thread
>>> group. I think this is odd, at least
>>>
>>> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once
>in
>>> a test run
>>>
>>> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
>>> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the
>other
>>> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
>>>
>>> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would
>be a
>>> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that
>appears
>>> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this
>case
>>> can wait.
>>>
>>
>> yes, ok for me.
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
>>> > We haven't released since
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Thanks for feedback.
>>> > > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
>>> > > and
>>> > > compare it with the value we advertise.
>>> > >
>>> > > Regards
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > downloading
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thank you
>>> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>> > > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hello,
>>> > > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Thank you
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > Hi
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run
>due
>>> > > > > > to missing
>>> > > > > > files in bin folder as
>>> > > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > FYI
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>>> > > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Hello,
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in
>trunk
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > >
>>> > > > would
>>> > > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>>> > > > > > >
>status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>>> > > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
>>> > > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>>> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests
>related
>>> > > > > > > to :
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action
>>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action
>>> > > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
>>> > > > > > > released.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
>>> > > > > > > following
>>> > > >
>>> > > > content:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>---------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > > ---
>>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
>>> > > > > > > enhancements /
>>> > > > > > > bugfixes.
>>> > > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>>> > > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a
>nightly
>>> > > > > > > build
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > tomorrow:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Test particularly:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > - Recording
>>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
>>> > > > > > > iteration of
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > current
>>> > > > > > > loop)
>>> > > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
>>> > > > > > > Controller
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>---------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > > ---
>>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > Regards.
>>> > > > > > > Philippe M.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > --
>>> > > > > Cordialement.
>>> > > > > Philippe Mouawad.
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Cordialement.
>>> > > Philippe Mouawad.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>
>>
>>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Felix,
Did you have time to look at this ?
Thanks
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <felix.schumacher@
> internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
>> > We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
>>
>> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed load
>> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
>> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try to
>> bind to the same fixed port.
>>
>> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
>
> I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
> Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
>
> It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
>>
>
> Which ones ?
>
>>
>> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a thread
>> group. I think this is odd, at least
>>
>> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once in
>> a test run
>>
>> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
>> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the other
>> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
>>
>> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would be a
>> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that appears
>> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this case
>> can wait.
>>
>
> yes, ok for me.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Felix
>>
>> >
>> > Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
>> > We haven't released since
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for feedback.
>> > > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
>> > > and
>> > > compare it with the value we advertise.
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
>> > > > with
>> > > > downloading
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you
>> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> > > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello,
>> > > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due
>> > > > > > to missing
>> > > > > > files in bin folder as
>> > > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > FYI
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> > > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hello,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > >
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> > > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
>> > > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> > > > >
>> > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related
>> > > > > > > to :
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action
>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action
>> > > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
>> > > > > > > released.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
>> > > > > > > following
>> > > >
>> > > > content:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
>> > > > > > > enhancements /
>> > > > > > > bugfixes.
>> > > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>> > > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly
>> > > > > > > build
>> > > > >
>> > > > > tomorrow:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Test particularly:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - Recording
>> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>> > > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
>> > > > > > > iteration of
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > loop)
>> > > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
>> > > > > > > Controller
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Regards.
>> > > > > > > Philippe M.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Cordialement.
>> > > > > Philippe Mouawad.
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Cordialement.
>> > > Philippe Mouawad.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> > Hello,
> >
> > @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
> > We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
>
> The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed load
> test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
> (remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try to
> bind to the same fixed port.
>
> I am not sure to understand exactly what the bug is .
I recently ran a NON Gui distributed test and had no issues.
Do it happens with any test plan, only in GUI mode ... ?
It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
>
Which ones ?
>
> 1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a thread
> group. I think this is odd, at least
>
> 2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once in
> a test run
>
> What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
> implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the other
> side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
>
> For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would be a
> good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that appears
> after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this case
> can wait.
>
yes, ok for me.
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
> >
> > Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
> > We haven't released since
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for feedback.
> > > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
> > > and
> > > compare it with the value we advertise.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
> > > > with
> > > > downloading
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due
> > > > > > to missing
> > > > > > files in bin folder as
> > > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk
> > > > > > > that
> > > >
> > > > would
> > > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> > > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > > >
> > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related
> > > > > > > to :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action
> > > > > > > - Result Status Action
> > > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
> > > > > > > following
> > > >
> > > > content:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
> > > > > > > enhancements /
> > > > > > > bugfixes.
> > > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> > > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly
> > > > > > > build
> > > > >
> > > > > tomorrow:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Test particularly:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Recording
> > > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> > > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
> > > > > > > iteration of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > loop)
> > > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
> > > > > > > Controller
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > Philippe M.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cordialement.
> > > > > Philippe Mouawad.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cordialement.
> > > Philippe Mouawad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> Hello,
>
> @Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
> We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
The fix for 62463 is only a partial fix. Try to run a distributed load
test with fixed rmi port in the GUI. You will get exceptions, as the
(remote) listeners will be instantiated more than one time and try to
bind to the same fixed port.
It is not clear to me, what we should do with those listeners.
1) they seem to be intended rather globally, but are local to a thread
group. I think this is odd, at least
2) the should probably not be instantiated (cloned?) more than once in
a test run
What was the original intention for those listeners? Can they be
implemented as global singleton like objects? If not, how is the other
side of the remote connection able to distinguish those objects?
For 62570 (enhancement related to validity of CA), I think I would be a
good idea to add the hint about the property to the dialog that appears
after the creation of a new CA. All further enhancements on this case
can wait.
Regards,
Felix
>
> Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
> We haven't released since
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for feedback.
> > Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file
> > and
> > compare it with the value we advertise.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem
> > > with
> > > downloading
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > Which file did you download and from which link ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due
> > > > > to missing
> > > > > files in bin folder as
> > > > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk
> > > > > > that
> > >
> > > would
> > > > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> > > > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > >
> > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related
> > > > > > to :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Flow Control Action
> > > > > > - Result Status Action
> > > > > > - Iterating Controllers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with
> > > > > > following
> > >
> > > content:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following
> > > > > > enhancements /
> > > > > > bugfixes.
> > > > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> > > > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly
> > > > > > build
> > > >
> > > > tomorrow:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Test particularly:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Recording
> > > > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> > > > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next
> > > > > > iteration of
> > > > >
> > > > > current
> > > > > > loop)
> > > > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach
> > > > > > Controller
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > Philippe M.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cordialement.
> > > > Philippe Mouawad.
> > > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
@Felix, I reviewed the PR for the 62463, it looks good to me.
We could release with 62570 not fixed as it's an enhancement
Once committed, can we start a release 5.0 ?
We haven't released since
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for feedback.
> Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file and
> compare it with the value we advertise.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem with
>> downloading
>>
>> Thank you
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> > Which file did you download and from which link ?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> >
>> > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due to missing
>> > > files in bin folder as
>> > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>> > >
>> > > FYI
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello,
>> > > >
>> > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that
>> would
>> > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>> > > >
>> > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
>> > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
>> > resolution=FIXED&target_
>> > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>> > > >
>> > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
>> > > >
>> > > > - Flow Control Action
>> > > > - Result Status Action
>> > > > - Iterating Controllers
>> > > >
>> > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following
>> content:
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
>> > > > bugfixes.
>> > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>> > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
>> > tomorrow:
>> > > >
>> > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>> > > >
>> > > > Test particularly:
>> > > >
>> > > > - Recording
>> > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>> > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of
>> > > current
>> > > > loop)
>> > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
>> > > >
>> > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > --
>> > > > Regards.
>> > > > Philippe M.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cordialement.
>> > Philippe Mouawad.
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for feedback.
Usually it’s a good thing to test integrity with sha of the file and
compare it with the value we advertise.
Regards
On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem with
> downloading
>
> Thank you
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Which file did you download and from which link ?
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due to missing
> > > files in bin folder as
> > > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
> > >
> > > FYI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that
> would
> > > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> > > >
> > > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> > > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> > > >
> > > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
> > > >
> > > > - Flow Control Action
> > > > - Result Status Action
> > > > - Iterating Controllers
> > > >
> > > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
> > > > bugfixes.
> > > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> > > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
> > tomorrow:
> > > >
> > > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> > > >
> > > > Test particularly:
> > > >
> > > > - Recording
> > > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> > > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of
> > > current
> > > > loop)
> > > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
> > > >
> > > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Philippe M.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>.
I downloaded again and now it's working, maybe I had a problem with
downloading
Thank you
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Which file did you download and from which link ?
>
>
> Thank you
>
> On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due to missing
> > files in bin folder as
> > jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
> >
> > FYI
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
> > > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> > >
> > > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> > > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> resolution=FIXED&target_
> > > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> > >
> > > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
> > >
> > > - Flow Control Action
> > > - Result Status Action
> > > - Iterating Controllers
> > >
> > > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
> > >
> > >
> > > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
> > > bugfixes.
> > > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> > > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
> tomorrow:
> > >
> > > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> > >
> > > Test particularly:
> > >
> > > - Recording
> > > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> > > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of
> > current
> > > loop)
> > > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
> > >
> > > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > Regards.
> > > Philippe M.
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
Which file did you download and from which link ?
Thank you
On Sunday, July 8, 2018, Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due to missing
> files in bin folder as
> jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
>
> FYI
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
> > deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
> >
> > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> > resolution=FIXED&target_
> > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> > <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> > Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
> > milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> >
> > I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
> >
> > - Flow Control Action
> > - Result Status Action
> > - Iterating Controllers
> >
> > If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
> >
> >
> > I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
> > bugfixes.
> > We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> > If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build tomorrow:
> >
> > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> >
> > Test particularly:
> >
> > - Recording
> > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> > - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of
> current
> > loop)
> > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
> >
> > We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > Regards.
> > Philippe M.
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Jmeter Tea <jm...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I download latest nightly r1835292 and it failed to run due to missing
files in bin folder as
jmeter.properties and log4j2.xml
FYI
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
> deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>
> - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&
> resolution=FIXED&target_
> milestone=JMETER_4.1
> <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
> milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>
> I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
>
> - Flow Control Action
> - Result Status Action
> - Iterating Controllers
>
> If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
>
>
> I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
> bugfixes.
> We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build tomorrow:
>
> - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>
> Test particularly:
>
> - Recording
> - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of current
> loop)
> - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
>
> We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
> --
> Regards.
> Philippe M.
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am 07.07.2018 um 12:31 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
> Hi Feiix,
>
> My answers inline below
>
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 5. Juli 2018 22:47:19 MESZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
>> p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com>:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
>>> deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>> Some people are more inclined to install a dot x release (like 4.1) as
>> they believe them to be more stable.
>
> On the opposite, lot of people think 4.1 would be minor (bug fix mainly) ,
> and lot of blogs said about 3.0 and 4.0 that Jmeter had taken 10 years to
> release a major version.
>
> That’s why I think it’s better for « marketing » reason to release a 5.0
>
> But it’s not the only reason.
> I believe this version deserves a major number:
> - The httpclient new Api migration
> - Report : New graph and Custom graphs
> - XPath 2
> - the flow control improvements which will hopefully ease many use cases
> - Search improvements. I’ve been using it and it’s a big usability
> improvement for correlation
> - recorder enhancement, this really also makes life easier
>
> So I believe this 4.1 version would not be a correct version number as due
> to the new features and hc4 api migration it might require a bugfix version
> 5.1.
>
>
> But if you feel I am wrong, it’s not a problem to name it 4.1.
> i mentionned 5.0 in a tweet and here.
> 4.1 is mentioned in lot of stackoverflow answers and tweets.
It is just a number :)
I am fine with - almost - any number we use.
>
>
>
>> But as you already anounced that the next version will be called 5.0, I
>> guess it will be 5.0.
>>
>>> - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>>> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>>> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>>> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
>>> milestone=JMETER_4.1
>>> <https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
>> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
>> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
>> milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>>> I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
>>>
>>> - Flow Control Action
>>> - Result Status Action
>>> - Iterating Controllers
>>>
>>> If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
>> I think we should have a look at the rmi port usage problems with the
>> listeners.
>
> what is the bug number for it ?
62463 I will add a patch to that entry, but it will probably not be the
full monty.
I will first look at the offset for the used ports. Second would be to
hinder the listeners from re-registering.
Regards,
Felix
>
> Thanks
>
>> Regards,
>> Felix
>>
>>>
>>> I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
>>> bugfixes.
>>> We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>>> If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
>>> tomorrow:
>>>
>>> - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>>>
>>> Test particularly:
>>>
>>> - Recording
>>> - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>>> - Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of current
>>> loop)
>>> - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
>>>
>>> We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Feiix,
My answers inline below
On Saturday, July 7, 2018, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> wrote:
>
>
> Am 5. Juli 2018 22:47:19 MESZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
> p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com>:
> >Hello,
> >
> >We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
> >deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
>
> Some people are more inclined to install a dot x release (like 4.1) as
> they believe them to be more stable.
On the opposite, lot of people think 4.1 would be minor (bug fix mainly) ,
and lot of blogs said about 3.0 and 4.0 that Jmeter had taken 10 years to
release a major version.
That’s why I think it’s better for « marketing » reason to release a 5.0
But it’s not the only reason.
I believe this version deserves a major number:
- The httpclient new Api migration
- Report : New graph and Custom graphs
- XPath 2
- the flow control improvements which will hopefully ease many use cases
- Search improvements. I’ve been using it and it’s a big usability
improvement for correlation
- recorder enhancement, this really also makes life easier
So I believe this 4.1 version would not be a correct version number as due
to the new features and hc4 api migration it might require a bugfix version
5.1.
But if you feel I am wrong, it’s not a problem to name it 4.1.
i mentionned 5.0 in a tweet and here.
4.1 is mentioned in lot of stackoverflow answers and tweets.
> But as you already anounced that the next version will be called 5.0, I
> guess it will be 5.0.
>
> >
> > - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> > status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> > component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> >Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
> > milestone=JMETER_4.1
> ><https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
> Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
> milestone=JMETER_4.1>
> >
> >I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
> >
> > - Flow Control Action
> > - Result Status Action
> > - Iterating Controllers
> >
> >If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
>
> I think we should have a look at the rmi port usage problems with the
> listeners.
what is the bug number for it ?
Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
> >
> >
> >I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> >
> >We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
> >bugfixes.
> >We'd like tests and feedback from users.
> >If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
> >tomorrow:
> >
> > - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
> >
> >Test particularly:
> >
> > - Recording
> > - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
> >- Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of current
> > loop)
> > - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
> >
> >We'll be waiting for 10 days.
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release 5.0 ?
Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am 5. Juli 2018 22:47:19 MESZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad <p....@ubik-ingenierie.com>:
>Hello,
>
>We have currently 64 bugs/enhancements implemented in trunk that would
>deserve a Major new version 5.0 :
Some people are more inclined to install a dot x release (like 4.1) as they believe them to be more stable.
But as you already anounced that the next version will be called 5.0, I guess it will be 5.0.
>
> - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_
> status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&
> component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=
>Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_
> milestone=JMETER_4.1
><https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&component=HTTP&component=Main&list_id=170488&order=Importance&product=JMeter&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&target_milestone=JMETER_4.1>
>
>I think last commits deserve a deep review /tests related to :
>
> - Flow Control Action
> - Result Status Action
> - Iterating Controllers
>
>If nobody finds a bug, the new version 5.0 should be released.
I think we should have a look at the rmi port usage problems with the listeners.
Regards,
Felix
>
>
>I propose to send a mail on user mailing list with following content:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>We'd like to release a new version 5.0 with following enhancements /
>bugfixes.
>We'd like tests and feedback from users.
>If you'd like to help testing, you can download a nightly build
>tomorrow:
>
> - https://ci.apache.org/projects/jmeter/nightlies/
>
>Test particularly:
>
> - Recording
> - Flow Control Action (old Test Action)
>- Result Status Action (break loop, switch to next iteration of current
> loop)
> - While Controller / Loop Controller / Foreach Controller
>
>We'll be waiting for 10 days.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------