On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
> The fact that the test failed seems to make it less than sufficient.  I
> don't quite see how checking pystones is a useful measure, unless you
> *know* that there is only CPU involved and that the machine where you
> are checking it is effectively unloaded:  I/O and scheduling latencies
> aren't going to be magically subtracted.

Is this a complaint about the test/documentation or the feature?

If the test/documentation, I've already stated what should be done about
it -- and I may do so at some point in the near future.  In the
meantime, adding another zero or five would decrease the chance of it
failing again.

If the feature: it's certainly not perfect, but has been useful.
Benji York
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to