+1 for me. On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Milamber <[email protected]> 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 < > [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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
