John Arbash Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Mon May 22 14:49:26 BST 2006
Martin Pool wrote:
> On 22 May 2006, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>> I like the ideas, I just don't want us to be hamstrung by a commit policy.
> I think logging the performance would be good; I wouldn't want to start
> rejecting commits based on it certainly for a long time.
> At the moment we have a bit of a target rich environment and the big
> thing is to add more benchmarks and fix the obvious things they point
> Once we are through that we'll want to watch for any performance
> regressions from one release to the next, but not necessarily in every
> commit that comes along. As you say it's fine to temporarily get slower
> to clean up the code or fix a bug -- conceivably the previous version was
> fast but unsafe, and it's impossible to make correct code be that fast.
> Still it could be good to get at least a warning if something suddenly
> gets worse.
> For the moment if would just be nice to have the system tell you, in any
> branch, whether you're making things worse or better.
I agree that it is nice to know how you are impacting performance. And I
even think it could be good to reject patches that slow things down a
lot. As long as there was a way to submit a patch that said "I know this
slows things down, but I need to commit it anyway".
We might be able to do some of that with the richer interface, rather
than the simple 1-command-per-line pqm that we have right now.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060522/7e121855/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar