Hi, Pinging again on this. Regards On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Philippe Mouawad < philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > Can we go for a 3.0 or do we need to discuss it more or eventually run a > vote on this ? > > Thanks > Regards > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Antonio Gomes Rodrigues < > ra0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2016-01-13 21:43 GMT+01:00 Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>: >> >> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Antonio Gomes Rodrigues < >> ra0...@gmail.com >> > > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > My opinion >> > > >> > > I think it's a good idea to rename to 3.0 the next release, because: >> > > Old release of JMeter have bad reputation (complex to use, bad >> > performance, >> > > etc.) to people >> > > People think that JMeter evolve slowly (I have even heard it from an >> > Apache >> > > (not JMeter) commiter >> > > Same reason than Milamber >> > > >> > > Remove old things (HC3.1 support, etc.) is great to because each time >> I >> > > show JMeter to someone, he is afraid by the GUI >> > > >> > > Remove some listener is great to (the two proposed by Philippe >> Mouawad) >> > and >> > > maybe other (I think about Monitor Results, >> > >> > +1 I think there are now better ways to do this and jmeter-plugins has 1 >> > >> > >> > > Graph Results, >> > >> > +0, It can be useful in Debugging maybe >> > >> > >> > > Assertion Results >> > > >> > I prefer your idea of debug listener than removal, because from >> > Stackoverflow questions, I think this one is used >> > >> > > >> > > About listener I think it will be great to brain storming about them >> > > because I think: >> > > they are not modern >> > > it misses some very interesting/important (some are present in JMeter >> > > plugins) while JMeter have some very few helpfull >> > > >> > >> > I tend to think that new report dashboard feature answers this. As we >> do no >> > favor GUI testing, I am not sure we should enhance this with. >> > For live graphing, we should I think enhance BackendLIstener with a JDBC >> > persister at least. >> > >> I think too >> >> My complete opinion >> Have the new report dashboard feature to have a complete report at the end >> of the load test >> Have BackendLIstener to live graphing. Have a great live graphing allow to >> check the load test and stop/modify it if it's necessary (bad >> configuration, bad data, etc.). It's usefull too for some test (for >> example >> chekc in live the result of a chaos monkey) >> Only keep a few listeners in JMeter core (deprecate it and remove it) >> Install JMeter Plugins to have more listener if we want to display graphic >> in JMeter >> >> >> For the moment I have not test report dashboard feature but the screenshot >> I have seen are great. I will check them asap to check if something is >> missing >> >> About BackendLIstener I have already test it and it's great. Maybe it need >> some GUI improvement and new supported backend (ElasticSearch, database) >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > > I think it will be great to separate the listener in two parts: >> > > >> > Nice idea. >> > >> > >> > > listener (all the interesting listener (Aggregate Graph, Response Time >> > > Graph, etc.) >> > > debug listener (Assertion Results, JSR223 Listener, etc.) >> > > >> > > It will be great to have project which regroup jmx files + results + >> data >> > > files like commercial tools (a zip file is sufficient) >> > > >> > Can you clarify this ? >> > >> Instead having one or more JMX files + data files (csv) + result load test >> files (csv, etc.) I think it will be better to have a single file which >> contains all these files. >> Or two files (one for the load scripts + data and the other for the >> results >> files) >> >> It will allow to easily send to a collegue the complete script with all >> necessary files (csv, etc.) >> The same to send the result of a load test >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > It will be great to have 2 modes to hide some sampler/listener/etc. >> > > One for newcomer and another for expert. >> > > It will allow to don't scary newcomers the first time he launch JMeter >> > > >> > I like this idea, knowing that we have this property that we could use: >> > #jmeter.expertMode=true >> > >> > > >> > > Or have one mode by technology tested (http, database, etc.) + expert >> > mode >> > > will all >> > > >> > > Maybe remove some timer (I don't know is they are all used) >> > > >> > I think that all of them have their use but maybe put some only in >> expert >> > mode. >> > >> > Another field of deprecation is maybe the BSF elements that seem to me >> > better replaced by JSR223 elements. >> > >> >> +1 >> >> > >> > Anyway thanks for all those ideas. >> > >> > > >> > > Antonio >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2016-01-08 0:48 GMT+01:00 Milamber <milam...@apache.org>: >> > > >> > > > Hello, >> > > > >> > > > For me, the jump to 3.0 must be done for next version. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Remember: JMeter 2.0.0 was release in 2004, so 12 years ago and 23 >> > > > versions have been release since! >> > > > >> > > > A lot of works since 2004 on the user interface (the toolbar, >> sampler >> > > > forms, graphical listener, etc.) >> > > > >> > > > A lot of works under the woods, to improve the JMeter internal >> > > > performance, the samplers like HTTP request (default HC4), the >> parallel >> > > > resource download, etc) >> > > > >> > > > A lot of works to improve the user experience (like the Regexp >> tester, >> > > the >> > > > templates box, the search on the JMeter tree, log pane, OS >> integration >> > > for >> > > > copy/paste, POST body for WS request, etc.) >> > > > >> > > > Recently, a lot of works on the website to refresh the design (and >> > logo) >> > > > (a lot of this changes will publish on the next release) >> > > > >> > > > IMHO, the bump to JMeter 3.0, exceptionally can not only based on >> the >> > new >> > > > behaviors since the previous version (N-1) or API changes, but we >> need >> > to >> > > > consider the works of all developers since 2004. (and after change >> to a >> > > new >> > > > number rules) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Apache JMeter isn't comparable with project like Commons or >> HTTPClient >> > on >> > > > the versions rules. Commons/HC are mainly use as a framework inside >> > > another >> > > > software (like JMeter). JMeter is mainly use a as end user software, >> > the >> > > > API (break/don't break) isn't the alone criteria to change the >> versions >> > > > number. The UI and the engine must be consider to the next release >> > > number. >> > > > >> > > > Last reason to change : The users may be confused with a 2.x version >> > from >> > > > 2004 (works only with Java 1.4, some jvm args are now incompatibles) >> > and >> > > a >> > > > 2.14 version which require Java 7. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Milamber >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 05/01/2016 11:01, sebb wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> On 4 January 2016 at 18:23, Philippe Mouawad < >> > > philippe.moua...@gmail.com> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> First Happy new year 2016 ! >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> JMeter does not have a formal policy for major/minor version >> release >> > > >>>> updates. >> > > >>>> However historically major veresion changes have been associated >> > with >> > > >>>> major changes. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I am proposing to follow what seems to become a standard in >> > versioning >> > > >>> refering to a proposal from a scientist working on the subject. >> > > >>> >> > > >> http://semver.org/ says: >> > > >> >> > > >> Increment the MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, >> > > >> >> > > >> We are not doing that. >> > > >> >> > > >> Also other ASF projects such as Commons and HttpClient require >> major >> > > >>>> version bumps when removing deprecated code. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> So isn't this what we are doing as we dropped 4 classes >> > corresponding >> > > to >> > > >>> deprecated elements. And we will deprecate some more. >> > > >>> But the main idea behind this is that next version contains major >> > > >>> features >> > > >>> which I think deserve this change. >> > > >>> >> > > >> What features are you referring to? >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> I don't think the proposed changes warrant a major version bump. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I don't understand, but if we don't come to an agreement I >> propose >> > to >> > > >>> run a >> > > >>> vote on this although it would be better to avoid it. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On 3 January 2016 at 15:36, Milamber <milam...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> I agree with a new release with a new version number system, and >> > with >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>> next release to become 3.0. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Before the next release, I would like add the HiDPI (high >> > definition >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> screen) >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> for JMeter (for Linux Gnome/GTK and Windows). Currently I works >> on >> > > >>>>> this. >> > > >>>>> (my new computer have a 3200x1800 resolution on a 13' screen, >> > JMeter >> > > is >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> very >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> small with the CrossPlatform Swing UI) >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> On 03/01/2016 15:08, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Hi Felix, >> > > >>>>>> Thanks for answer. >> > > >>>>>> I don't think it will be a long hold on the new release, for >> me we >> > > >>>>>> have >> > > >>>>>> these remaining points: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> - Integrate HTTPCLIENT 4.5.2 to fix >> > > >>>>>> - 58583 < >> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583> >> > > >>>>>> - 57319 >> > > >>>>>> - Finalize tests >> > > >>>>>> - 57804 => Waiting confirmation from Rainer or any other >> > member >> > > >>>>>> of >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> team >> > > >>>>>> - Deprecation: >> > > >>>>>> - 58791 => I will do it >> > > >>>>>> - Not mandatory but would be nice: >> > > >>>>>> - 58793 >> > > >>>>>> - 58790 >> > > >>>>>> - 58792 => I will try to stat it >> > > >>>>>> - 58794 => I will start a discussion on this >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> That's all for me, but if you see other things feel free to add >> > it. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Thanks >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Regards >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Philippe M. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> @philmdot >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Felix Schumacher < >> > > >>>>>> felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Am 01.01.2016 um 19:14 schrieb Philippe Mouawad: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Hi, >> > > >>>>>>>> Happy new year to the whole team. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Any news on this ? >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I have nothing against a 3.0, but I would not like it, if the >> > > "big" >> > > >>>>>>> version change would lead to a long hold up of a new release. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Regards, >> > > >>>>>>> Felix >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Thanks >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> > > >>>>>>>> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi, >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Following my proposals to deprecate a certain number of >> > elements >> > > >>>>>>>>> that >> > > >>>>>>>>> were >> > > >>>>>>>>> approved by 2 commiters and knowing that we have some >> important >> > > new >> > > >>>>>>>>> features in this release, I propose to name next version 3.0 >> > > >>>>>>>>> instead >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> of >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> 2.14. >> > > >>>>>>>>> It would be the occasion to make a big cleanup in all >> "oldies" >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> elements >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> and maybe be even more aggressive in the deprecations/removals. >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> And starting from there change our release naming to follow >> > this: >> > > >>>>>>>>> - http://semver.org/ >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> This has been mentioned by this thread and I think it's a >> good >> > > >>>>>>>>> idea: >> > > >>>>>>>>> - >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jmeter-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAFJ7uesG%2BsKiQh_wQ5_iLp%3DJ%2BtSiG5fQ%3D7Pp1CvbJ1kncXo%2B%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> I think in the developers thinking our current naming is not >> great, >> > > >>>>>>>>> cause >> > > >>>>>>>>> one can think every "major" release we do is a Minor >> release. >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> -- >> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards >> > > >>>>>>>>> Philippe M. >> > > >>>>>>>>> @philmdot >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> Cordialement. >> > > >>> Philippe Mouawad. >> > > >>> >> > > >> . >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cordialement. >> > Philippe Mouawad. >> > >> > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
