It is not necessary to vote to start a new release. Just start a discussion for make a new release, and if nobody put a veto (missing fixes, wait for a new behavior to commit, etc.) the release process can be start.
Thus if everybody are ok, I can start the release process, as the RM, next Sunday (1st march). The re-ordering of the contents in changes page seems a good thing too. Milamber On 26/02/2015 07:58, Похилько Андрей wrote: > +1 > > I also have fixed connect time measurements, it was not operational, now it > works. > > 26.02.2015, 09:24, "Felix Schumacher" <[email protected]>: >> Am 19. Februar 2015 23:53:28 MEZ, schrieb Philippe Mouawad >> <[email protected]>: >>> Hi, >>> I fixed what seemed urgent, remaining work (html report) will require >>> much >>> more time. >>> So if we want to release we could start. >> +1 >>> Regarding changes.xml I suggest to change order: >>> - New and noteworthy >>> - Improvements >>> - Bugs >>> - Thanks >>> - Known issues >>> >>> As when you read them today, you see bugs before while enhancement are >>> usually what makes a product nice. >>> Known bugs are at the begining, I find personnaly that it may give a >>> bad >>> idea of jmeter while almost all of them are due to jdk bugs on some >>> systems. >> +1 >> >> Regards >> Felix >>> Regards >>> >>> On Friday, January 30, 2015, Philippe Mouawad >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Thanks Andrey, >>>> If possible we should fix this one before: >>>> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57514 >>>> >>>> And I intend to commit a BackendListener client implementation >>> related to >>>> reporting. >>>> See a thread I will start. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>> I have committed remote retry feature into trunk. Now I have no more >>>>> reasons to delay 2.13 release. Instead, I support it to be out as >>> soon >>>>> as it is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>> >>>>> On 01/25/2015 07:02 PM, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>>> +1 for inclusion (will reconsider once PR is available :-) ) >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 25, 2015, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>>>> Ah, I forgot one thing that I wanted to commit in 2.13: remote >>> retry >>>>>>> feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is needed when you run distributed test with tens of slaves >>> and some >>>>>>> of them fail because of network glitches or other reasons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> May I do that before starting release process for 2.13? As usual, >>> I'll >>>>>>> show it as GitHub PR first for easy review, and there will be >>> bugzilla >>>>>>> with explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/25/2015 05:11 PM, Milamber wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 for me to release a 2.13 version. (I can act as RM) >>>>>>>> +1 too for a new property to disable RSTA on Logger panel before >>> the >>>>> new >>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Milamber >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2015 00:20, sebb wrote: >>>>>>>>> OK to name it 2.13 and to release it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given that there have been some issues with using >>> RSyntaxTextArea, I >>>>>>>>> wonder whether what it provides for the LoggerPanel is worth >>> the >>>>>>>>> potential disadvantages. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have just had a look at the display, and I'm not sure it >>> provides >>>>>>>>> much apart from line numbering.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can see that RSTA is beneficial for the GUI fields, but these >>> are >>>>>>>>> generally quite small, whereas the logging panel can grow >>> without >>>>>>>>> bound. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment the user has no choice as to whether to use it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather than release 2.13 and hope that the issues have been >>> solved, I >>>>>>>>> think it would be better to at least provide the option to >>> disable >>>>>>>>> RSTA for the LoggerPanel. This could be done with a property. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least then there would be a work round if RSTA proves >>> problematic. >>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2015 at 19:56, Felix Schumacher >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am 24.01.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> It appears 2.12 suffers from an OOM in GUI mode : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440 >>>>>>>>>>> This OOM seems to be due to RSyntaxTexarea bug: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/bobbylight/RSyntaxTextArea/issues/99 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It appeared after the rework of LoggerPanel#processEvent way >>> of >>>>>>> appending >>>>>>>>>>> event. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now that it receivs log event even when closed this OOM has >>> more >>>>>>> chances >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> appear. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I reverted to 2.11 way of appending events to fix OOM waiting >>> for >>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>>>> from rsyntaxtarea project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There was also a bug in the way limit=0 was set that had no >>>>> effect, I >>>>>>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>>>>>> it as part of the bug. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a workaround which is to set: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - jmeter.loggerpanel.enable_when_closed=false >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But if user opens panel, OOM will occur if lot of logs occur >>>>>>> (specially if >>>>>>>>>>> stacktraces). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we release, it cannot be named 2.12.1 because we have some >>>>> "big?" >>>>>>>>>>> features in this versions so it would not be a minor one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the frequency and impact of this bug, in our >>> company I >>>>> had 2 >>>>>>>>>>> reports in 5 days of this OOM so I think it is not to be >>> ignored. >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>>>>> +1 to release 2.13. I don't think a we should go for 2.x.y. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Felix >>>> -- >>>> Cordialement. >>>> Philippe Mouawad.
