Andy, I was basing that conclusion on the observations by Laurent. While I understand that it is possible 0.9.0 had actual functional problems (allowing it to be "faster"), the logic I am employing goes like this:
1) Laurent finds that 0.9.0 is considerably faster than 0.9.1 release 2) I find that 0.9.1 (May 15) is considerably faster than 0.9.1 release (reported in Jena-256) 3) we did significant performance and functional testing (with massive concurrency etc.) with the 0.9.1 May 15 build which showed by our standards that 0.9.1 May 15 appears functionally correct from our point of view 4) my past experience with previous tx problems shows me that our internal test coverage is quite extensive 5) there is another team here I loosely collaborate with who has been using and functionally testing 0.9.0 for a while now and they have not reported any problems Now, to point 4), of course, it is biased. We use Jena in a specific manner and thus we miss a large class of functional testing that does not concern us. So, yes, it is possible that whatever happened after May 15 was important to fix functional problems. And of course, it is also quite possible there were or even are other problems we are simply not yet aware of. I guess I am trying to point out that performance could be important enough to produce a new release as well as it may keep people from upgrading if they find the new release is visibly slower without significant other gains (for them) Simon From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 06/19/2012 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [] [] () TDB Transactional error logged by Fuseki server for all update operations Simon, As someone who did not use 0.9.0, do you not think that we ought to move cautiously? Fixing the JENA-256 is a more major investigation and having fixed it needs testing, if indeed, it is a regression rather than being more careful, correctly, about the data - i.e. 0.9.0 may have been wrong. The workaround for JENA-260 has been confirmed, and hopefully the proper fix will be soon too. Andy On 19/06/12 15:23, Simon Helsen (JIRA) wrote: > > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-260?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13396795#comment-13396795 ] > > Simon Helsen commented on JENA-260: > ----------------------------------- > > right, like the performance regression in JENA-256 (that will be quite visible for clients who came from 0.9.0)
