Hello, I agrée Changes.XML is very useful. Maybe Summary of main changes could contain more screenshots of new things . Is this ok for you Sebb ?
Regards Philippe On Monday, December 5, 2011, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 December 2011 20:22, 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. > > I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the > release archives. > > That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk > > Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top > level with even more details. > > But not a Wiki page. > > Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to >> 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.
