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 <[email protected] > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <[email protected]> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >
