On 5 December 2011 06:46, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > I agrée Changes.XML is very useful. > Maybe Summary of main changes could contain more screenshots of new things > . Is this ok for you Sebb ?
Not tried using screenshots in changes before, but it could work. Or maybe link to component ref. > Regards > Philippe > > On Monday, December 5, 2011, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4 December 2011 20:22, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Le 04/12/2011 20:08, Philippe Mouawad a ecrit : >>>> Hello Sebb, Milamber, Rainer , All, >>>> Regarding changes.xml file, don't you think we should make it less >>>> "textual" and highlight some new features ? >>>> Or maybe create a new page called "New Features" >>>> >>> >>> Yes, good idea. Perhaps a new page "NewInJMeterX.X.X" in JMeter wiki >>> with screen-shots (can be update after a 'visual' improvement). >>> (and a link from changes.xml/html: "Some improvements are detailed on >>> this wiki page") >>> >>> I can initialize this page on Wiki, if you are agreed. >> >> I don't think it should be on the Wiki; it needs to be part of the >> release archives. >> >> That was the idea of the section "Summary of main changes" in changes.xmk >> >> Alternatively, there could be a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file at the top >> level with even more details. >> >> But not a Wiki page. >> >> Whilst working on fixes, it's enough to >>> Milamber >>> >>>> Because IMHO current page is sometimes hard to understand unless you go > to >>>> bugzilla in details ? >>>> >>>> For example I missed some important features in 2.5. >>>> I think something like Miamber page would be useful: >>>> >>>> - >>>> > http://blog.milamberspace.net/index.php/2011/08/18/apache-jmeter-2-5-est-sorti-964.html >>>> >>>> >>>> What's your opinion ? >>>> Regards >>>> Philippe >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > [email protected] >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> From my tests, I don't have such a drop in performances (max 2%). >>>>> I also don't notice degradation on POST particularly. >>>>> I agree with Sebb, issue are in 2.5 and 2.5.1 so we won't degrade > things >>>>> in a future 2.5.2. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Philippe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 4 December 2011 16:09, Rainer Jung <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01.12.2011 22:57, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Sebb, >>>>>>>> Don't you think we could make a release ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lots of important fixes have been made and 2 months have passed > since >>>>>>>> >>>>>> last >>>>>> >>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all congrats to the huge progress you are making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about BZ52189: "JMeter 2.5.1 slower than 2.4 for HTTP POST >>>>>>> >>>>>> requests" >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that problem reproducible and really in the range described in the >>>>>>> >>>>>> first >>>>>> >>>>>>> comment, or was that due to comparing different http samplers? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure; I've not been able to reproduce it yet, and the data so far >>>>>> does not give much clue as to what is happening. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> A drop in throughput from 130 to 80 just because of a newer version >>>>>>> >>>>>> would be >>>>>> >>>>>>> pretty serious IMHO. Unfortunately I didn't yet have the cycles to > try >>>>>>> >>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>>> myself, but wanted to provide a heads up. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed; however if the problem is difficult to solve I see no harm in >>>>>> releasing another version so long as it is no worse than 2.5.1, and so >>>>>> long as the problem is eventually resolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rainer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cordialement. >>>>> Philippe Mouawad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
