We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is it ideal, meh...
> On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Just my two cents. > > I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key > indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold a > release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate thing. > Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would be > concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I think > no as well. > > I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate repo. > > Thanks, > Mark > >> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I just >> don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for it. >> >>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> The source is already public, so on some level a source release is no >>> different from a git tag. Benchmarks has matured enough that I think it >>> makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the geode-benchmarks >>> repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release. >>> >>> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful in >>> other ways than we use them. While our focus for CI is on tuning for >>> repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break in a >>> new cluster or get some rough numbers. Some might want to get under the >>> hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the >>> understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool >>> that requires getting your hands dirty. >>> >>> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop” be >>> enough to let other interested contributors help get geode-benchmarks to a >>> “better state”? >>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a user in >>>> their current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process which >>>> relies on very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will require more >>>> tuning. I don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release until >>>> they are in a better state. >>>> >>>> -Jake >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I believe the desire is to include the source code for geode-benchmarks >>>>>> as >>>>>> part of the official geode release, much like how we include >>>>>> geode-examples. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release pipeline - I >>>>> think last release we were running them but decided they were too flaky to >>>>> use. >>>>> >>>>> +1 to including the benchmark source in the source release. >>>>> >>>>> -Dan >>> >
