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 <ph...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/01 22:57:55 UTC
Release time ?
Hello Sebb,
Don't you think we could make a release ?
Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since last
release.
Regards
Philippe
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
Le 01/12/2011 21:57, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> Hello Sebb,
> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>
Yes, a release before end of year seems a good thing.
Milamber
> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since last
> release.
>
> Regards
> Philippe
>
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:28 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 December 2011 09:44, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> > I made local tests on Pre/Post processor, it seems to be OK.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> > I have only one remark concerning TransactionController option, if you
> have
> > time to look at it.
> > See mail :
> >
> > - Question about 52128 and TransactionSampler
> >
> >
> > And one note, this feature can impact a little response time accuracy
> > because:
> >
> > - It increases the number of SQL queries done on DB
> > - Making Insert/Updates/Deletes can also impact the execution plan
> since
> > DB statistics won't be played
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "DB statistics won't be played"
>
As Pre/Post may insert lots of data (if JDBC sampler is executed a lot of
times) , this may lead to some tables being highly modified and performance
may degrade until DB statistics taks are run.
>
>
>
> > But it can be useful for Functionnal Testing.
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 03/12/2011 08:37, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> >> > It's not on défault toolbar because it was Added in the same period.
> >> > But i think it should be as all other actions are available.
> >> > I Will try to create one and add it unlEss milamber you want to do it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I can do an icon for the action.
> >>
> >> > I also thought about Start icône with a red X on a clock.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Good idea.
> >>
> >> Milamber
> >>
> >>
> >> > Regards
> >> > Philippe
> >> >
> >> > On Saturday, December 3, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> OK.
> >> >>> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
> >> >>> toolbar.
> >> >>>
> >> >> I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from
> the
> >> >> default toolbar?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to
> >> use
> >> >>> icons under creative commons licence ?
> >> >>>
> >> >> Depends which CC license you mean.
> >> >>
> >> >> See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
> >> >>>
> >> >> Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
> >> >> Would be better than nothing ...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> >>>>>>
> >> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >> >>>>>>> I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> - 52131 <
> >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>
> >> >>>> :I
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>> think you partly implemented it no ?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
> >> >>>>>> support File (and some other field types).
> >> >>>>>> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
> >> >>>>>> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next
> >> week.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> - 52128 <
> >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>
> >> >>>> :
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic
> testing
> >> >>>>>> done on it - is that something you can do?
> >> >>>>>> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
> >> >>>>> Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the
> new
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> feature
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> ?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by
> >> >>>>>
> >> > work
> >> >
> >> >>>> :-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Whatever you have time for.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially,
> so
> >> >>>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Cordialement.
> >> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 December 2011 09:44, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
> I made local tests on Pre/Post processor, it seems to be OK.
OK, thanks.
> I have only one remark concerning TransactionController option, if you have
> time to look at it.
> See mail :
>
> - Question about 52128 and TransactionSampler
>
>
> And one note, this feature can impact a little response time accuracy
> because:
>
> - It increases the number of SQL queries done on DB
> - Making Insert/Updates/Deletes can also impact the execution plan since
> DB statistics won't be played
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "DB statistics won't be played"
>
> But it can be useful for Functionnal Testing.
> Regards
> Philippe
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 03/12/2011 08:37, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>> > It's not on défault toolbar because it was Added in the same period.
>> > But i think it should be as all other actions are available.
>> > I Will try to create one and add it unlEss milamber you want to do it.
>> >
>>
>> I can do an icon for the action.
>>
>> > I also thought about Start icône with a red X on a clock.
>> >
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> Milamber
>>
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Philippe
>> >
>> > On Saturday, December 3, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> OK.
>> >>> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
>> >>> toolbar.
>> >>>
>> >> I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from the
>> >> default toolbar?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to
>> use
>> >>> icons under creative commons licence ?
>> >>>
>> >> Depends which CC license you mean.
>> >>
>> >> See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
>> >>>
>> >> Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
>> >> Would be better than nothing ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >>>>>>
>> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>> >>>>>>> I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - 52131 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>
>> >>>> :I
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> think you partly implemented it no ?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
>> >>>>>> support File (and some other field types).
>> >>>>>> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
>> >>>>>> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next
>> week.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - 52128 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>
>> >>>> :
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
>> >>>>>> done on it - is that something you can do?
>> >>>>>> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
>> >>>>> Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> feature
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by
>> >>>>>
>> > work
>> >
>> >>>> :-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Whatever you have time for.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
>> >>>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Cordialement.
>> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello Sebb,
I made local tests on Pre/Post processor, it seems to be OK.
I have only one remark concerning TransactionController option, if you have
time to look at it.
See mail :
- Question about 52128 and TransactionSampler
And one note, this feature can impact a little response time accuracy
because:
- It increases the number of SQL queries done on DB
- Making Insert/Updates/Deletes can also impact the execution plan since
DB statistics won't be played
But it can be useful for Functionnal Testing.
Regards
Philippe
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 03/12/2011 08:37, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> > It's not on défault toolbar because it was Added in the same period.
> > But i think it should be as all other actions are available.
> > I Will try to create one and add it unlEss milamber you want to do it.
> >
>
> I can do an icon for the action.
>
> > I also thought about Start icône with a red X on a clock.
> >
>
> Good idea.
>
> Milamber
>
>
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> >>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> OK.
> >>> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
> >>> toolbar.
> >>>
> >> I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from the
> >> default toolbar?
> >>
> >>
> >>> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to
> use
> >>> icons under creative commons licence ?
> >>>
> >> Depends which CC license you mean.
> >>
> >> See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>
> >>
> >>> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
> >>>
> >> Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
> >> Would be better than nothing ...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Regards
> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <
> >>>>>>
> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >>>>>>> I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - 52131 <
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>> :I
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> think you partly implemented it no ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
> >>>>>> support File (and some other field types).
> >>>>>> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
> >>>>>> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next
> week.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - 52128 <
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
> >>>>>> done on it - is that something you can do?
> >>>>>> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
> >>>>> Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
> >>>>>
> >>>> feature
> >>>>
> >>>>> ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by
> >>>>>
> > work
> >
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Whatever you have time for.
> >>>>
> >>>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
> >>>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cordialement.
> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
Le 03/12/2011 08:37, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> It's not on défault toolbar because it was Added in the same period.
> But i think it should be as all other actions are available.
> I Will try to create one and add it unlEss milamber you want to do it.
>
I can do an icon for the action.
> I also thought about Start icône with a red X on a clock.
>
Good idea.
Milamber
> Regards
> Philippe
>
> On Saturday, December 3, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>>
> wrote:
>
>>> OK.
>>> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
>>> toolbar.
>>>
>> I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from the
>> default toolbar?
>>
>>
>>> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to use
>>> icons under creative commons licence ?
>>>
>> Depends which CC license you mean.
>>
>> See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>>
>>> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
>>>
>> Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
>> Would be better than nothing ...
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <
>>>>>>
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>>>> I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> :I
>>>>
>>>>>>> think you partly implemented it no ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
>>>>>> support File (and some other field types).
>>>>>> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
>>>>>> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>>> Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
>>>>>> done on it - is that something you can do?
>>>>>> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
>>>>> Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
>>>>>
>>>> feature
>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by
>>>>>
> work
>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you have time for.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
>>>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cordialement.
>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>
>>
>
Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
It's not on défault toolbar because it was Added in the same period.
But i think it should be as all other actions are available.
I Will try to create one and add it unlEss milamber you want to do it.
I also thought about Start icône with a red X on a clock.
Regards
Philippe
On Saturday, December 3, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> OK.
>> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
>> toolbar.
>
> I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from the
> default toolbar?
>
>> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to use
>> icons under creative commons licence ?
>
> Depends which CC license you mean.
>
> See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
>> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
>
> Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
> Would be better than nothing ...
>
>> Regards
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hello Sebb,
>>> >> > I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131
>
>>> :I
>>> >> > think you partly implemented it no ?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
>>> >> support File (and some other field types).
>>> >> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
>>> >> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
>>> >>
>>> >> > - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
>
>>> :
>>> >> > Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>>> >>
>>> >> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
>>> >> done on it - is that something you can do?
>>> >> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
>>> > Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
>>> feature
>>> > ?
>>> >
>>> > I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by
work
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Whatever you have time for.
>>>
>>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
>>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 December 2011 22:48, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK.
> There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
> toolbar.
I don't see it on the toolbar - is that why? Or is it omitted from the
default toolbar?
> I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to use
> icons under creative commons licence ?
Depends which CC license you mean.
See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
Or maybe just a red line through the Start icon?
Would be better than nothing ...
> Regards
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hello Sebb,
>> >> > I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>> >> >
>> >> > - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131>
>> :I
>> >> > think you partly implemented it no ?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
>> >> support File (and some other field types).
>> >> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
>> >> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
>> >>
>> >> > - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128>
>> :
>> >> > Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>> >>
>> >> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
>> >> done on it - is that something you can do?
>> >> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
>> > Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
>> feature
>> > ?
>> >
>> > I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by work
>> :-)
>>
>> Whatever you have time for.
>>
>> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
>> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
OK.
There is also a missing icon for new option "Start no pauses" in the
toolbar.
I am not at all a designer :-) , do you know if we have the right to use
icons under creative commons licence ?
Or maybe Milamber you can create one ?
Regards
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello Sebb,
> >> > I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
> >> >
> >> > - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131>
> :I
> >> > think you partly implemented it no ?
> >>
> >> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
> >> support File (and some other field types).
> >> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
> >> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
> >>
> >> > - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128>
> :
> >> > Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
> >>
> >> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
> >> done on it - is that something you can do?
> >> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
> >>
> >>
> > Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
> > Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new
> feature
> > ?
> >
> > I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by work
> :-)
>
> Whatever you have time for.
>
> I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
> just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 December 2011 21:51, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello Sebb,
>> > I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>> >
>> > - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131> :I
>> > think you partly implemented it no ?
>>
>> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
>> support File (and some other field types).
>> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
>> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
>>
>> > - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128> :
>> > Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>>
>> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
>> done on it - is that something you can do?
>> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>>
>>
> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
> Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new feature
> ?
>
> I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by work :-)
Whatever you have time for.
I imagine JUnit tests will be time consuming to set up initially, so
just basic local tests to see that it seems to work.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> > I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
> >
> > - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131> :I
> > think you partly implemented it no ?
>
> Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
> support File (and some other field types).
> TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
> KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
>
> > - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128> :
> > Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
>
> Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
> done on it - is that something you can do?
> We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
>
> Can you give me more details of what you expect ?
Do you want me to implement junit tests or do some tests on the new feature
?
I will try to do my best, but these days I am a bit overwhelmed by work :-)
.
> > Regards
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:10 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 December 2011 21:57, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello Sebb,
> >> > Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >> >
> >> > Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
> >> last
> >> > release.
> >>
> >> Yes, probably due for release soon.
> >>
> >> Are there any partially finished updates or urgent fixes?
> >>
> >> > Regards
> >> > Philippe
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 December 2011 21:36, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
> I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
>
> - 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131> :I
> think you partly implemented it no ?
Yes, I made a start and got bogged down with fixing TestBean to
support File (and some other field types).
TestBean is now hopefully much improved, but the GUI aspects of
KeyStore have yet to be done. Might be able to get to that next week.
> - 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128> :
> Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
Code reorganisation looks OK, but ought to have some basic testing
done on it - is that something you can do?
We don't have any unit tests for JDBC ...
> Regards
>
> Philippe
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:10 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 December 2011 21:57, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello Sebb,
>> > Don't you think we could make a release ?
>> >
>> > Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>> last
>> > release.
>>
>> Yes, probably due for release soon.
>>
>> Are there any partially finished updates or urgent fixes?
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Philippe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello Sebb,
I think these 2 issues are still in progress:
- 52131 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52131> :I
think you partly implemented it no ?
- 52128 <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128> :
Some documentation required ? I tried to fix it this evening.
Regards
Philippe
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:10 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 December 2011 21:57, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> > Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >
> > Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
> last
> > release.
>
> Yes, probably due for release soon.
>
> Are there any partially finished updates or urgent fixes?
>
> > Regards
> > Philippe
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 December 2011 21:57, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>
> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since last
> release.
Yes, probably due for release soon.
Are there any partially finished updates or urgent fixes?
> Regards
> Philippe
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 December 2011 20:24, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> On 04.12.2011 20:54, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>
>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things
>> in
>> a future 2.5.2.
>
>
> I did a simple test using a very small file (2 bytes) to mostly check per
> request overhead. I let it run with 10 threads for a total of 200.000
> samples and only took the last 20.000 samples to calculate results.
>
> Configuration was default, JVM was 1.6.0_29, System was Solaris Sparc with 2
> CPUs for JMeter and Apache on a separate one CPU system.
>
> CPU was not saturated, bandwidth neither.
>
> Those tests showed:
>
> - results for HttpClient3.1 and HttpClient4 are about the same
> - results for JMeter 2.4, 2.5.1 and 2.5.2-dev are about the same
> - response times measured with HttpClient are between 52% and 59% of the old
> Java Sampler
> - wallclock time needed for the 20.000 samples was only 0.3% to 2.2% bigger
> than the sum of the response times, so overhead is minimal
> - overhead, though minimal was about 2% for HttpClient and about 0.5 for the
> old Java sampler. Overall it is a big difference, but both numbers are
> pretty small.
> - since overhead is small, throughput in requests per second behaves roughly
> like average response time, namely about 740 requests per second for
> HttpClient and about 400-440 for the old Java sampler. So throughput is
> about 70% better for the newer samplers.
> - CPU was higher for HttpClient, but only about 50-60%, so relative to
> throughput (per request) it was a bit lower.
>
> "about the same" means differences were smaller than variability of test
> runs, always less than 10%.
>
> It could be, that the test results will be very different, for bigger
> response sizes, KeepAlive turned off, real live tests with cookies etc. etc.
>
> At least the base line looks good and I don't see a relevant difference
> between 2.4 and 2.5.x.
Thanks very much, very useful analysis.
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung<ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>>>
>>> last
>>>>>
>>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>>
>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>>>> requests"
>>>>
>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>>>
>>> first
>>>>
>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>>
>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>>>
>>> would be
>>>>
>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try
>>>> it
>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rainer
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 04.12.2011 20:54, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things in
> a future 2.5.2.
I did a simple test using a very small file (2 bytes) to mostly check
per request overhead. I let it run with 10 threads for a total of
200.000 samples and only took the last 20.000 samples to calculate results.
Configuration was default, JVM was 1.6.0_29, System was Solaris Sparc
with 2 CPUs for JMeter and Apache on a separate one CPU system.
CPU was not saturated, bandwidth neither.
Those tests showed:
- results for HttpClient3.1 and HttpClient4 are about the same
- results for JMeter 2.4, 2.5.1 and 2.5.2-dev are about the same
- response times measured with HttpClient are between 52% and 59% of the
old Java Sampler
- wallclock time needed for the 20.000 samples was only 0.3% to 2.2%
bigger than the sum of the response times, so overhead is minimal
- overhead, though minimal was about 2% for HttpClient and about 0.5 for
the old Java sampler. Overall it is a big difference, but both numbers
are pretty small.
- since overhead is small, throughput in requests per second behaves
roughly like average response time, namely about 740 requests per second
for HttpClient and about 400-440 for the old Java sampler. So throughput
is about 70% better for the newer samplers.
- CPU was higher for HttpClient, but only about 50-60%, so relative to
throughput (per request) it was a bit lower.
"about the same" means differences were smaller than variability of test
runs, always less than 10%.
It could be, that the test results will be very different, for bigger
response sizes, KeepAlive turned off, real live tests with cookies etc. etc.
At least the base line looks good and I don't see a relevant difference
between 2.4 and 2.5.x.
Regards,
Rainer
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung<ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>
>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>> last
>>>> release.
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>
>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST requests"
>>>
>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>> first
>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>
>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>
>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>> would be
>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try it
>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>
>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rainer
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
+1 for me.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> > Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
> > Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
> > "textual" and highlight some new features ?
> > Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
> >
>
> Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
> with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
> (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
> this wiki page")
>
> I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>
> Milamber
>
> > Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
> to
> > bugzilla in details ?
> >
> > For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
> > I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
> >
> > -
> >
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
> >
> >
> > What's your opinion ?
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> >> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> >> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things
> >> in a future 2.5.2.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
> >>>>>
> >>> last
> >>>
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
> >>>>
> >>> requests"
> >>>
> >>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
> >>>>
> >>> first
> >>>
> >>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
> >>>>
> >>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
> >>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
> >>>>
> >>> would be
> >>>
> >>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try
> >>>>
> >>> it
> >>>
> >>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
> >>>>
> >>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
> >>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
> >>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Rainer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cordialement.
> >> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 5 December 2011 06:46, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I agrée Changes.XML is very useful.
> Maybe Summary of main changes could contain more screenshots of new things
> . Is this ok for you Sebb ?
Not tried using screenshots in changes before, but it could work. Or
maybe link to component ref.
> Regards
> Philippe
>
> On Monday, December 5, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>>>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
>>>> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
>>>> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
>>>> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
>>> with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
>>> (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
>>> this wiki page")
>>>
>>> I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>>
>> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
>> release archives.
>>
>> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
>>
>> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
>> level with even more details.
>>
>> But not a Wiki page.
>>
>> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
>>> Milamber
>>>
>>>> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
> to
>>>> bugzilla in details ?
>>>>
>>>> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
>>>> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's your opinion ?
>>>> Regards
>>>> Philippe
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>>>>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>>>>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
> things
>>>>> in a future 2.5.2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
> since
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> last
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> requests"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> first
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>>>>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
> try
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>>>>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>>>>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rainer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cordialement.
>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
I agrée Changes.XML is very useful.
Maybe Summary of main changes could contain more screenshots of new things
. Is this ok for you Sebb ?
Regards
Philippe
On Monday, December 5, 2011, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
>>> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
>>> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
>>> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>>>
>>
>> Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
>> with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
>> (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
>> this wiki page")
>>
>> I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>
> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
> release archives.
>
> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
>
> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
> level with even more details.
>
> But not a Wiki page.
>
> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
>> Milamber
>>
>>> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
to
>>> bugzilla in details ?
>>>
>>> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
>>> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>>>
>>> -
>>>
http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your opinion ?
>>> Regards
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>>>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>>>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
things
>>>> in a future 2.5.2.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Philippe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
since
>>>>>>>
>>>>> last
>>>>>
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>>>>>>
>>>>> requests"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>>>>>>
>>>>> first
>>>>>
>>>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>>>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>>>>>>
>>>>> would be
>>>>>
>>>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
try
>>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>>>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>>>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rainer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cordialement.
>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 5 December 2011 12:21, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 December 2011 09:48, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>> >> >> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
>> >> >> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
>> >> >> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
>> >> >> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
>> >> > with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
>> >> > (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
>> >> > this wiki page")
>> >> >
>> >> > I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
>> >> release archives.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because
>> :
>> >
>> > * JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before
>> > the new release (or download a nightly build)
>>
>> That is a good idea.
>>
>> > * Easy to update / publish (and before the release)
>>
>> It's still possible to update the JMeter website after a release - I
>> did that for the TLP move.
>> However, it is a bit more awkard as the updates may have to be applied
>> to trunk as well.
>>
>> > I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or
>> > developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors
>> > before release.
>>
>> Possibly, but discussion on the features would need to be done in a
>> separate page (or perhaps as footnotes) otherwise the original page
>> could quickly become unreadable. Not sure if MoinMoin makes that easy.
>>
>
>
> The discussions must stills in dev list / bugzilla. I would say, the wiki
> page can be view by the advanced users or the developers (ASF or plugins),
> and brings some ideas or suggests in theirs minds for improve a new
> features which not release.
> This wiki page can be a reference (temporary) for people which share a new
> feature with a friend (via twitter/facebook/email)
>
OK, I see.
In that case it probably warrants a separate Wiki discussion page,
separate from release notes.
>
>>
>> > The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki
>> > page.
>>
>> No, because it is important that the downloads contain the information.
>>
>> However, the Wiki is useful for supplementing the archives, so it
>> would be OK to link to an page on the Wiki for late-breaking
>> information.
>> But the changes section needs to be as complete as possible when the
>> release is cut.
>>
>> Maybe there is a way to have both?
>>
>> This would probably be easier with a separate release notes page in
>> SVN which corresponds to a separate Wiki page.
>> As the work progresses on a release, the WIki is updated, and just
>> before the release is cut, the Wiki page is renamed ant converted into
>> a suitable format for the achives.
>> The Wiki page can then be corrected after release if necessary.
>>
>> There would need to be a separate page for each release.
>> Probably ReleaseNotesCurrent, which is renamed to ReleaseNotes-2.5.2
>> just before the release is cut.
>> We don't always know the exact version in advance - in fact, this next
>> release should probably be 2.6 rather than 2.5.1 as there have been a
>> lot of changes.
>>
>
>
> I thinks this will complicate the release process, and will not be easy
> (how to convert the wiki page with embedded to a html page to include in
> release tar? manually/ant?).
I was hoping it could be mainly automated, by using a script to
convert the content to a suitable format.
Run the script, review the result and save to SVN.
> We can have :
> A wiki page with screen-shots / text for show the good stuff for new
> release (JMeterNextRelease). This page can be archived
> JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X during the release process.
> (like
> http://archive.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.4-200806172000/whatsnew3.4/eclipse-news-all.html-
> this page isn't include in the eclipse release)
>
> The changes.xml with the summary section without screen-shots but with all
> new features (like actually), and a link to the wiki page
> JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X
> During the release process, some copy/paste from wiki page to populate the
> summary section (if needed)
It's probably easier to do it just prior to release.
Quite often several changes are related, and make more sense described together.
Or a change is reverted/redone in a different way.
It's also quite a useful exercise to go through all the changes.xml
entries to review if they make sense and perhaps reorder related
items.
This can reveal that some vital fix was accidentally omitted.
Yes, it's a bit of extra work just prior to release, but it would have
to be done at some point.
> When the announcement email of new JMeter version is sent, inside we can
> find the 2 links : changes.html for master reference (particulary id
> bugzilla) and the wiki release page (with attractive screen-shots to
> encourage users to update their version)
Good idea.
> Milamber
>
>
>>
>> > Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary
>> > section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all
>> > releases tarballs?
>>
>> Same as with all the other screenshots.
>> They are in the source archive, and in the binary archive.
>>
>> > Milamber
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in
>> changes.xmk
>> >>
>> >> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
>> >> level with even more details.
>> >>
>> >> But not a Wiki page.
>> >>
>> >> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
>> >> > Milamber
>> >> >
>> >> >> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you
>> go
>> >> to
>> >> >> bugzilla in details ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
>> >> >> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's your opinion ?
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> Philippe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>> >> >>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>> >> >>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
>> >> things
>> >> >>> in a future 2.5.2.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Regards
>> >> >>> Philippe
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>> >> >>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
>> >> since
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>> last
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>> release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> requests"
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in
>> the
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> first
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so
>> far
>> >> >>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer
>> version
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> would be
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
>> >> try
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> it
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm
>> in
>> >> >>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1,
>> and so
>> >> >>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Regards,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Rainer
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Cordialement.
>> >> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 09:48, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> >> >> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
> >> >> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
> >> >> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
> >> >> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
> >> > with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
> >> > (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
> >> > this wiki page")
> >> >
> >> > I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
> >>
> >> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
> >> release archives.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because
> :
> >
> > * JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before
> > the new release (or download a nightly build)
>
> That is a good idea.
>
> > * Easy to update / publish (and before the release)
>
> It's still possible to update the JMeter website after a release - I
> did that for the TLP move.
> However, it is a bit more awkard as the updates may have to be applied
> to trunk as well.
>
> > I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or
> > developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors
> > before release.
>
> Possibly, but discussion on the features would need to be done in a
> separate page (or perhaps as footnotes) otherwise the original page
> could quickly become unreadable. Not sure if MoinMoin makes that easy.
>
The discussions must stills in dev list / bugzilla. I would say, the wiki
page can be view by the advanced users or the developers (ASF or plugins),
and brings some ideas or suggests in theirs minds for improve a new
features which not release.
This wiki page can be a reference (temporary) for people which share a new
feature with a friend (via twitter/facebook/email)
>
> > The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki
> > page.
>
> No, because it is important that the downloads contain the information.
>
> However, the Wiki is useful for supplementing the archives, so it
> would be OK to link to an page on the Wiki for late-breaking
> information.
> But the changes section needs to be as complete as possible when the
> release is cut.
>
> Maybe there is a way to have both?
>
> This would probably be easier with a separate release notes page in
> SVN which corresponds to a separate Wiki page.
> As the work progresses on a release, the WIki is updated, and just
> before the release is cut, the Wiki page is renamed ant converted into
> a suitable format for the achives.
> The Wiki page can then be corrected after release if necessary.
>
> There would need to be a separate page for each release.
> Probably ReleaseNotesCurrent, which is renamed to ReleaseNotes-2.5.2
> just before the release is cut.
> We don't always know the exact version in advance - in fact, this next
> release should probably be 2.6 rather than 2.5.1 as there have been a
> lot of changes.
>
I thinks this will complicate the release process, and will not be easy
(how to convert the wiki page with embedded to a html page to include in
release tar? manually/ant?).
We can have :
A wiki page with screen-shots / text for show the good stuff for new
release (JMeterNextRelease). This page can be archived
JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X during the release process.
(like
http://archive.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.4-200806172000/whatsnew3.4/eclipse-news-all.html-
this page isn't include in the eclipse release)
The changes.xml with the summary section without screen-shots but with all
new features (like actually), and a link to the wiki page
JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X
During the release process, some copy/paste from wiki page to populate the
summary section (if needed)
When the announcement email of new JMeter version is sent, inside we can
find the 2 links : changes.html for master reference (particulary id
bugzilla) and the wiki release page (with attractive screen-shots to
encourage users to update their version)
Milamber
>
> > Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary
> > section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all
> > releases tarballs?
>
> Same as with all the other screenshots.
> They are in the source archive, and in the binary archive.
>
> > Milamber
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in
> changes.xmk
> >>
> >> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
> >> level with even more details.
> >>
> >> But not a Wiki page.
> >>
> >> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
> >> > Milamber
> >> >
> >> >> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you
> go
> >> to
> >> >> bugzilla in details ?
> >> >>
> >> >> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
> >> >> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
> >> >>
> >> >> -
> >> >>
> >>
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What's your opinion ?
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Philippe
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> >> >>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> >> >>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> >> >>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
> >> things
> >> >>> in a future 2.5.2.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> Philippe
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >> >>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
> >> since
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>> last
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> release.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> requests"
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in
> the
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> first
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so
> far
> >> >>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer
> version
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> would be
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
> >> try
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> it
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm
> in
> >> >>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1,
> and so
> >> >>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Rainer
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Cordialement.
> >> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 5 December 2011 09:48, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>> >> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
>> >> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
>> >> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
>> >> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
>> > with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
>> > (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
>> > this wiki page")
>> >
>> > I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>>
>> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
>> release archives.
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because :
>
> * JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before
> the new release (or download a nightly build)
That is a good idea.
> * Easy to update / publish (and before the release)
It's still possible to update the JMeter website after a release - I
did that for the TLP move.
However, it is a bit more awkard as the updates may have to be applied
to trunk as well.
> I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or
> developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors
> before release.
Possibly, but discussion on the features would need to be done in a
separate page (or perhaps as footnotes) otherwise the original page
could quickly become unreadable. Not sure if MoinMoin makes that easy.
> The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki
> page.
No, because it is important that the downloads contain the information.
However, the Wiki is useful for supplementing the archives, so it
would be OK to link to an page on the Wiki for late-breaking
information.
But the changes section needs to be as complete as possible when the
release is cut.
Maybe there is a way to have both?
This would probably be easier with a separate release notes page in
SVN which corresponds to a separate Wiki page.
As the work progresses on a release, the WIki is updated, and just
before the release is cut, the Wiki page is renamed ant converted into
a suitable format for the achives.
The Wiki page can then be corrected after release if necessary.
There would need to be a separate page for each release.
Probably ReleaseNotesCurrent, which is renamed to ReleaseNotes-2.5.2
just before the release is cut.
We don't always know the exact version in advance - in fact, this next
release should probably be 2.6 rather than 2.5.1 as there have been a
lot of changes.
> Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary
> section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all
> releases tarballs?
Same as with all the other screenshots.
They are in the source archive, and in the binary archive.
> Milamber
>
>
>
>>
>> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
>>
>> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
>> level with even more details.
>>
>> But not a Wiki page.
>>
>> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
>> > Milamber
>> >
>> >> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
>> to
>> >> bugzilla in details ?
>> >>
>> >> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
>> >> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >>
>> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What's your opinion ?
>> >> Regards
>> >> Philippe
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>> >>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>> >>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
>> things
>> >>> in a future 2.5.2.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Philippe
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>> >>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
>> since
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> last
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> release.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> requests"
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> first
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>> >>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> would be
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
>> try
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> it
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>> >>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>> >>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Rainer
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Cordialement.
>> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> >> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
> >> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
> >> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
> >> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
> >>
> >
> > Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
> > with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
> > (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
> > this wiki page")
> >
> > I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
>
> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
> release archives.
>
I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because :
* JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before
the new release (or download a nightly build)
* Easy to update / publish (and before the release)
I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or
developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors
before release.
The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki
page.
Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary
section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all
releases tarballs?
Milamber
>
> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
>
> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
> level with even more details.
>
> But not a Wiki page.
>
> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
> > Milamber
> >
> >> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go
> to
> >> bugzilla in details ?
> >>
> >> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
> >> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
> >>
> >>
> >> What's your opinion ?
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> >>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> >>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade
> things
> >>> in a future 2.5.2.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Philippe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Sebb,
> >>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed
> since
> >>>>>>
> >>>> last
> >>>>
> >>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
> >>>>>
> >>>> requests"
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
> >>>>>
> >>>> first
> >>>>
> >>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
> >>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
> >>>>>
> >>>> would be
> >>>>
> >>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to
> try
> >>>>>
> >>>> it
> >>>>
> >>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
> >>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
> >>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rainer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cordialement.
> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
>> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
>> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
>> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>>
>
> Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
> with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
> (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
> this wiki page")
>
> I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the
release archives.
That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk
Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top
level with even more details.
But not a Wiki page.
Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to
> Milamber
>
>> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go to
>> bugzilla in details ?
>>
>> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
>> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>>
>> -
>> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>>
>>
>> What's your opinion ?
>> Regards
>> Philippe
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things
>>> in a future 2.5.2.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>>>>>>
>>>> last
>>>>
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>>>>>
>>>> requests"
>>>>
>>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>>>>>
>>>> first
>>>>
>>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>>>>
>>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>>>>>
>>>> would be
>>>>
>>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try
>>>>>
>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rainer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cordialement.
>>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit :
> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
> "textual" and highlight some new features ?
> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
>
Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki
with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement).
(and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on
this wiki page")
I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed.
Milamber
> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go to
> bugzilla in details ?
>
> For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
> I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
>
> -
> http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
>
>
> What's your opinion ?
> Regards
> Philippe
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things
>> in a future 2.5.2.
>>
>> Regards
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Sebb,
>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>>>>>
>>> last
>>>
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>>>>
>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>>>>
>>> requests"
>>>
>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>>>>
>>> first
>>>
>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>>>
>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>>>>
>>> would be
>>>
>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try
>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>>>
>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rainer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cordialement.
>> Philippe Mouawad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All,
Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less
"textual" and highlight some new features ?
Or maybe create a new page called "New Features"
Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go to
bugzilla in details ?
For example I missed some important features in 2.5.
I think something like Miamber page would be useful:
-
http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html
What's your opinion ?
Regards
Philippe
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> wrote:
> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things
> in a future 2.5.2.
>
> Regards
> Philippe
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>> > On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello Sebb,
>> >> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>> >>
>> >> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
>> last
>> >> release.
>> >
>> >
>> > First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>> >
>> > What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST
>> requests"
>> >
>> > Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
>> first
>> > comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>>
>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
>> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>>
>> > A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
>> would be
>> > pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try
>> it
>> > myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>>
>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
>> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>>
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Rainer
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
>From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%).
I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly.
I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade things in
a future 2.5.2.
Regards
Philippe
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> > On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Sebb,
> >> Don't you think we could make a release ?
> >>
> >> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since
> last
> >> release.
> >
> >
> > First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
> >
> > What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST requests"
> >
> > Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
> first
> > comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
>
> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
> does not give much clue as to what is happening.
>
> > A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
> would be
> > pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try it
> > myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
>
> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
> long as the problem is eventually resolved.
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rainer
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Release time ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>>
>> Hello Sebb,
>> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>>
>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since last
>> release.
>
>
> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
>
> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST requests"
>
> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the first
> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far
does not give much clue as to what is happening.
> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version would be
> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to try it
> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in
releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so
long as the problem is eventually resolved.
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
Re: Release time ?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
> Don't you think we could make a release ?
>
> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed since last
> release.
First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making.
What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST requests"
Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the
first comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers?
A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version
would be pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles
to try it myself, but wanted to provide a heads up.
Regards,
Rainer