Why not just leave the PR open then?
> On Jan 23, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robert Houghton <rhough...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> @Alberto I like this idea. The link between Jira and the GitHub PR will be
> a nice breadcrumb to follow going forward as well, assuming the PRs are
> correctly labeled for cross-linking to occur.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:05 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
> <alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech> wrote:
>
>> What about closing the PRs and creating a Jira ticket (or tickets) for the
>> review and update of the code?
>> If someone finds time to spend on benchmarks, at least he/she will find
>> the tickets in Jira.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> De: Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io>
>> Enviado: jueves, 23 de enero de 2020 16:45
>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
>> Asunto: Re: Old geode-benchmark PRs
>>
>> @Alexander, I haven't looked at them in months and they never received any
>> formal review on GitHub, so it's hard to know for sure if they're ready to
>> merge or not, but as Jake said, they probably need some massaging to get
>> the resource usage just right and minimize variance. If at this point
>> there's no-one who knows enough about tuning benchmarks with the time to
>> look at them, then it seems unlikely that they'll get merged any time soon.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 6:42 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Donal, are you still looking at these? If they aren't ready to merge and
>>> not being worked on, should they be closed?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:32 PM Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two of those PRs are mine, so perhaps I can give a bit of context for
>>>> people who might look at them. The oldest of the two, "Feature/Add
>>> PdxType
>>>> benchmark and additional framework flexibility" was an attempt to
>>> quantify
>>>> and maintain the improvement in performance for PdxType creation when
>>> large
>>>> numbers of PdxTypes already exist, and to allow the passing of
>> additional
>>>> system properties to the VMs hosting the servers in order to change the
>>> log
>>>> level and prevent the benchmark measuring how long it takes to log
>>> PdxType
>>>> creation rather than actual time taken to create new PdxTypes. This PR
>>> has
>>>> been open for a very long time, so it's possible that the changes
>>> regarding
>>>> passing additional system properties to the VMs are now outdated or
>>>> unnecessary, but the actual benchmarks themselves still have some
>> value.
>>>>
>>>> The second PR, "Added benchmarks for aggregate functions" contains 16
>> new
>>>> benchmarks related to aggregate OQL queries, (8 each for Partitioned
>> and
>>>> Replicated regions), which were added following work in that area by
>> the
>>>> Commons team. The build is currently marked as failing, but this is due
>>> to
>>>> a timeout rather than an actual build failure, as the number of
>>> benchmarks
>>>> added increased the total time to build beyond the currently configured
>>>> timeout. Adding such a large number of additional benchmarks will
>>> probably
>>>> also noticeably increase the time it takes benchmarks to run, which
>> bears
>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps shed some light for people who may look over those
>> PRs.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed we have some old outstanding PRs for the geode-benchmarks
>>>>> project. Are any of these things we want to merge or should we close
>>> them
>>>>> out?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pulls
>>>>>
>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
