I think I found a minor error in the upgrade docs: The link in the section Per Request Options that should point to the Gremlin Drivers and Variants section of the reference docs instead tries to find that section in the upgrade docs. So, the link is broken.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2020 14:37 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] code freeze 3.4.9 I've pushed the 3.4.9-SNAPSHOT documentation for those interested in doing a review: https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.9-SNAPSHOT/ The upgrade docs are especially full this release. Definitely the longest list of improvements on 3.4.x since 3.4.0: https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.9-SNAPSHOT/upgrade/ On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > Following up on TINKERPOP-2438 - I think I've addressed the > performance issue that was noted. It's not a perfect solution but it > was easy/obvious and I feel safe enough to merge: > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/1368 > > I've formed the pull request for review with the intention to merge it > for 3.4.9. Running docker tests now - please let me know if there are > any concerns. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:12 PM Stephen Mallette > <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As we roll into 3.4.9 code freeze week we can use this thread for any >> issues or concerns that are found related to testing this week. >> >> To get the ball rolling, a regression has been noticed in performance >> around low-latency scripts and seems to be related to the new >> GremlinASTChecker. My earlier tests on this feature didn't note the >> cumulative damage of the additional AST processing that would occur >> on small/fast scripts where it is much harder to hide millisecond >> range increments. I've reverted that functionality: >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/daad70bec96d4a1d3a0579bee1 >> b73934d9293664 >> >> and reopened the issue: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2438 >> >> I opted to not revert the entire body of work because I think the >> idea is still valid in general but it needs more attention paid to >> these particular queries. I also don't think it's a reason to pause >> 3.4.9 release over. This release is too full of features to let this issue >> hold things up. >> >> I've published a 3.4.9-SNAPSHOT if you're like to test and I will >> post back when freshy docs are published. >> >>
