> So, my proposition is to postpone QA'ing performance pull > requests until someone unrelated to PR author (or even author's company) > can confirm that claims in that particular PR are true. Providing code snippet > that shows the perf difference (or provide a way to verify those claims in > reproducible matter) in PR should be enough for it > (https://github.com/XinzeChi/ceph/commit/2c8a17560a797b316520cb689240 > d4dcecf3e4cc for a particular example), and it should help get rid of > performance PRs that degrade performance or improve it only on particular > hardware/software configuration and at best don't improve anything > otherwise.
To clarify: if PR degrades performance for someone, that person should provide details of the case so others (including PR author) can review it (and maybe fix it). We're just humans and as such, we both make mistakes and learn from them, and my point was to encourage learning from mistakes and sharing knowledge, instead of going into full-on inter-company political warfare. With best regards / Pozdrawiam Piotr Dałek
