On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 December 2011 09:48, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, 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. > >> > > > > > > I'm not sure to be agree with you. I thinks Wiki in a good place because > : > > > > * JMeter users can view a preview of new behaviors / improvements before > > the new release (or download a nightly build) > > That is a good idea. > > > * Easy to update / publish (and before the release) > > It's still possible to update the JMeter website after a release - I > did that for the TLP move. > However, it is a bit more awkard as the updates may have to be applied > to trunk as well. > > > I thinks too, this can improve the JMeter's "visibility", users or > > developers can discuss or suggest new improvements on the new behaviors > > before release. > > Possibly, but discussion on the features would need to be done in a > separate page (or perhaps as footnotes) otherwise the original page > could quickly become unreadable. Not sure if MoinMoin makes that easy. >
The discussions must stills in dev list / bugzilla. I would say, the wiki page can be view by the advanced users or the developers (ASF or plugins), and brings some ideas or suggests in theirs minds for improve a new features which not release. This wiki page can be a reference (temporary) for people which share a new feature with a friend (via twitter/facebook/email) > > > The Summary section in changes.xml can be reducing to a link to the Wiki > > page. > > No, because it is important that the downloads contain the information. > > However, the Wiki is useful for supplementing the archives, so it > would be OK to link to an page on the Wiki for late-breaking > information. > But the changes section needs to be as complete as possible when the > release is cut. > > Maybe there is a way to have both? > > This would probably be easier with a separate release notes page in > SVN which corresponds to a separate Wiki page. > As the work progresses on a release, the WIki is updated, and just > before the release is cut, the Wiki page is renamed ant converted into > a suitable format for the achives. > The Wiki page can then be corrected after release if necessary. > > There would need to be a separate page for each release. > Probably ReleaseNotesCurrent, which is renamed to ReleaseNotes-2.5.2 > just before the release is cut. > We don't always know the exact version in advance - in fact, this next > release should probably be 2.6 rather than 2.5.1 as there have been a > lot of changes. > I thinks this will complicate the release process, and will not be easy (how to convert the wiki page with embedded to a html page to include in release tar? manually/ant?). We can have : A wiki page with screen-shots / text for show the good stuff for new release (JMeterNextRelease). This page can be archived JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X during the release process. (like http://archive.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.4-200806172000/whatsnew3.4/eclipse-news-all.html- this page isn't include in the eclipse release) The changes.xml with the summary section without screen-shots but with all new features (like actually), and a link to the wiki page JMeterReleaseNotesX.X.X During the release process, some copy/paste from wiki page to populate the summary section (if needed) When the announcement email of new JMeter version is sent, inside we can find the 2 links : changes.html for master reference (particulary id bugzilla) and the wiki release page (with attractive screen-shots to encourage users to update their version) Milamber > > > Another question, if we add some screen-shots to changes.xml (summary > > section), how do with old screen-shots after a new release? keep in all > > releases tarballs? > > Same as with all the other screenshots. > They are in the source archive, and in the binary archive. > > > Milamber > > > > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >
