Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I just don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for it.
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > The source is already public, so on some level a source release is no > different from a git tag. Benchmarks has matured enough that I think it > makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the geode-benchmarks repo > to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release. > > Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful in other > ways than we use them. While our focus for CI is on tuning for > repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break in a > new cluster or get some rough numbers. Some might want to get under the hood > and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the > understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool that > requires getting your hands dirty. > > Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop” be enough > to let other interested contributors help get geode-benchmarks to a “better > state”? > >> On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a user in their >> current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process which relies on >> very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will require more tuning. I >> don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release until they are in a >> better state. >> >> -Jake >> >> >>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>>> I believe the desire is to include the source code for geode-benchmarks as >>>> part of the official geode release, much like how we include >>>> geode-examples. >>>> >>> >>> Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release pipeline - I >>> think last release we were running them but decided they were too flaky to >>> use. >>> >>> +1 to including the benchmark source in the source release. >>> >>> -Dan >
