: I have seen this issue come up several times (perhaps the following is : an oversimplification): : Someone will suggest a performance enhancement and perhaps supply the : code. Then there will be a general discussion about the merits of the : change and the validity of the results, with question about the factors : involved and statements regarding how architectures widely differ and : the outcomes can be significantly different. If enough "voters" like the : change, then it is committed.
I don't really see this as being much different from the way bug fixes should be submitted. open an issue in jira, describe the problem (or in this case: performacne issue) submit a patch to change it and a JUnit test that demonstrates that things are better after the patch is applied. The only fundemental difference here is the hardware/OS aspect of the issue, the details of which should also be included in the issue (and when other people try out the patch, and agree that it's good, they should mention what hardward/os they tested on as well. Perhaps someone who is passionate about this issue should write up some guidelines in the wiki for this type of thing (ie: a template of hardware/os information to include when opening performacne improvement issues in jira) which can then be cited by others in the future. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
