-------- In message <[email protected]>, Nils Goroll writes: >Hi, > >> until we know and have fixed whatever caused Geoffs test to run poorly. > >I feel unhappy about dedicating a whole VDD to working on issues [...]
I don't want to spend the entire VDD on it. But so far, Geoffs test is the only live(-ish) test of -trunk I have heard of in a looong time, so I'm treating the failure(-ish) of the test very seriously. If I had more test-reports and they said differently, I would be more inclined to discount Geoffs data point, but having *only* that data point, I cannot ignore it. >Specific performance issues, should they exist, are, at least to my experience, >nothing which can be worked on productively in a larger group. The issue I want us to talk about is "How do we gain confidence that 4.1 isn't going to be a disaster when we havn't tested it?" I *also* want to talk about 4.2/5.0 and the future, but right here and now our biggest problem is that we don't know if 4.1-R can be released or not, and that should be our top priority. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
