Re: [jruby-dev] Proposal: performance work slides to second priority under bugs

2007-12-20 Thread MenTaLguY
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:59:28 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> I propose that from now until we get the next 1.1 prerelease out (post
> beta 2), performance work should be a second priority. We're currently
> at 45 open bugs on 1.0 branch, 103 on 1.1 branch (trunk...and 3 are high
> priorities for 1.1b2), 8 scheduled for "1.x", and 143 unscheduled.
> 
> I believe we need to work on reducing the number of bugs. Performance is
> looking great by most accounts, and we still need to accept performance
> bugs as they come in. But performance should be secondary for a while
> behind getting functionality, stability, and uniformity (of API, etc)
> fixes done.

Sounds good to me.  I should have some free time for JRuby and other
things over the holidays.

-mental


-
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



Re: [jruby-dev] Proposal: performance work slides to second priority under bugs

2007-12-20 Thread Thomas E Enebo
yes!

On 12/20/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose that from now until we get the next 1.1 prerelease out (post
> beta 2), performance work should be a second priority. We're currently
> at 45 open bugs on 1.0 branch, 103 on 1.1 branch (trunk...and 3 are high
> priorities for 1.1b2), 8 scheduled for "1.x", and 143 unscheduled.
>
> I believe we need to work on reducing the number of bugs. Performance is
> looking great by most accounts, and we still need to accept performance
> bugs as they come in. But performance should be secondary for a while
> behind getting functionality, stability, and uniformity (of API, etc)
> fixes done.
>
> This would include performance of Joni itself, which we need to look at
> getting a stable, official release of.
>
> Of course any really egregious performance problems can get a higher
> priority, and any fixes related to memory leaks are top-priority above
> general functionality bugs.
>
> Seem like a reasonable plan for now?
>
> - Charlie
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>


-- 
Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



Re: [jruby-dev] Proposal: performance work slides to second priority under bugs

2007-12-20 Thread Matt Fletcher
I like the idea because of my own selfish reason: the things stopping me
from upgrading JRuby in my project are bugs, not performance problems.


Re: [jruby-dev] Proposal: performance work slides to second priority under bugs

2007-12-20 Thread Ola Bini

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
I propose that from now until we get the next 1.1 prerelease out (post 
beta 2), performance work should be a second priority. We're currently 
at 45 open bugs on 1.0 branch, 103 on 1.1 branch (trunk...and 3 are 
high priorities for 1.1b2), 8 scheduled for "1.x", and 143 unscheduled.


I believe we need to work on reducing the number of bugs. Performance 
is looking great by most accounts, and we still need to accept 
performance bugs as they come in. But performance should be secondary 
for a while behind getting functionality, stability, and uniformity 
(of API, etc) fixes done.


This would include performance of Joni itself, which we need to look 
at getting a stable, official release of.


Of course any really egregious performance problems can get a higher 
priority, and any fixes related to memory leaks are top-priority above 
general functionality bugs.


Seem like a reasonable plan for now?

- Charlie

-
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



I'm in.

On memory leak duty at the moment, as you know.

--
Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com) 
JRuby Core Developer

Developer, ThoughtWorks Studios (http://studios.thoughtworks.com)
Practical JRuby on Rails (http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818)

"Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined.



-
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email