On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:02:46PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Ideally, FATE should have some basic plotting/performance >> > infrastructure, e.g a client can submit perf figures so that evolution >> > over time can be viewed. No idea why this can't be done. >> >> >> It can - it just hasn't been done yet :) >> >> Patches welcome, and I personally think this would be very useful and quite >> cool. > > i too think this would be cool, it will be somewhat noisy though for > some clients (like mine, which run in 8 VMs on the same host) > depending on how many of them run and how many are idle there will > be fluctuations
I assume that we are not operating under an "adversarial situation", i.e that is mitigated via current FATE mechanics. Then, we can limit the concerns to issues like the one you desribed. For this, as an extra goal, one could envision computing some sort of variance/confidence intervals after sufficiently many runs. This could also go into the report, so that one could e.g go to FATE and sort by confidence level in addition to the other fields. > > [...] > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being > governed by those who are dumber. -- Plato > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
