Ok. I'll focus on those. Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 22:49, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the > FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark. > > Ralph > >> On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable? >> >> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved... >> >> One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the >> libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that >> newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate >> those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date >> with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion >> it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things. >> >> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month. >> >> Remko >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Remko, >>> >>> Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next >>> release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they >>> have changed since 2.6. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
