Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update base_metrics.xml to include processcputime #467

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Oct 21, 2019

Conversation

@Yushan-Lin
Copy link
Contributor

Yushan-Lin commented Oct 16, 2019

Signed-off-by: Yushan Lin yushan.lin@ibm.com
#454

Signed-off-by: Yushan Lin <yushan.lin@ibm.com>
@genie-microprofile

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

genie-microprofile commented Oct 16, 2019

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

1 similar comment
@genie-microprofile

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

genie-microprofile commented Oct 16, 2019

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

Yushan-Lin added 2 commits Oct 16, 2019
Signed-off-by: Yushan Lin <yushan.lin@ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Yushan Lin <yushan.lin@ibm.com>
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ Changes marked with icon:bolt[role="red"] are breaking changes relative to previ
** Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric.

* Changes in 2.1
** Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jmartisk

jmartisk Oct 17, 2019

Contributor

That will happen in 2.1.1 AFAIK (not 2.1), so perhaps we should only add this to the changelog in the 2.1.x branch? (I mean we would add a new "Changes in 2.1.1" section, but just in the 2.1.x branch, don't mention it in master) The changelog will look a bit weird if we list the same change in sections for 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2.

We could have this in master as well, but there should be separate 2.1.1 and 2.0.3 sections, in which case it would again look weird because "why do we have 2.0.3 but no 2.0.2 and 2.0.1 sections"... WDYT @donbourne ?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@donbourne

donbourne Oct 17, 2019

Member

I agree it seems a bit weird to have the same thing added to all 3, but I think we need to be clear about when it was introduced. How about we say it like this...?

  • Changes in 2.2
    ** Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric

  • Changes in 2.1
    ** (2.1.1) Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric

  • Changes in 2.0
    ** (2.0.3) Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jmartisk

jmartisk Oct 17, 2019

Contributor

That sounds good

@@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ Implementations can still support the Expression Language if they choose to.
** Added some text to the specification about programmatic creation of metrics (without annotations)

* Changes in 2.0
** Added ProcessCpuTime as a new optional base metric.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jmartisk

jmartisk Oct 17, 2019

Contributor

Same as above about 2.1

@donbourne

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

donbourne commented Oct 17, 2019

ok to test

Signed-off-by: Yushan Lin <yushan.lin@ibm.com>
@jmartisk jmartisk merged commit 677d72f into eclipse:master Oct 21, 2019
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
default Build finished.
Details
eclipsefdn/eca The author(s) of the pull request is covered by necessary legal agreements in order to proceed!
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.