4 ms·

Finally indeed! In future rounds, I hope that we can spend less time trying to resolve problems--if there are problems, we'll just post the results and move on

by bhauer 13y ago

Finally indeed! In future rounds, I hope that we can spend less time trying to resolve problems--if there are problems, we'll just post the results and move on to the next round. Better to keep iterating, and allow the experts who work with each framework resolve issues as they come up. Thanks very much for contributing Jester to the test! I really appreciate your spirit and hope to see it improve in Round 7 as well. I'm looking forward to seeing the next pull request. :)

dom96 13y ago
Indeed, although people may be disappointed if their framework fails and they have to wait another month for another round of results, but then I suppose the next round will come a lot quicker if you have less issues to fix. No problem at all. Thank you for merging my process spawning silliness. You will definitely see a lot more improvements from me :) EDIT: A little issue I just noticed: the jester "Front-end server" is shown as "None" when in fact it's "nginx".
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  I think they would be less disappointed if it meant a consistent schedule. These benchmarks are really a lot of fun, not sure if they change hearts and minds, but they are beautiful and fun. I think being time-boxed rather than implementation-boxed make sense. If you miss a month, you got 30 days to fix it. Also, they could only "update" the test rules quarterly or every 6 months, give the authors a bit of time to respond.