From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AEC1F404 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753591AbdLNRb0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:31:26 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60639 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753578AbdLNRb0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:31:26 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB40C6C06; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:31:25 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DNSj7SpWWjbRkd1YJ2qvu397xC0=; b=vkB9Pi z+nHXGy16VKXXDFK9+DUGrvrd7RG+QgU0DCeBCRVnQtrk6+hoqa5Mrnmy66U4slJ DF8CdZMhh6m8prK2KtLJEtKXb09bBY/H/5sVaF54xGJ0lovw390TvURPfUFiOMGx aps7m7QQvyfRdzifLxjQKShApsZNBKR3wB9YI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wlP59+Cz0MypS9V9JkP9XHh3gK59ClYi WcKtCDStm+1HCUh6mh2zDuYZuo73OFGwauZBdRoMQmitZZC4cEzNTtKWgVk+Jc2T gTjB77eYpkvAy8eRnNk3EeKPv2ycrZzAju8FxpkRPYbJFn73J2qFgO7h0OYN8/JK n0vCjzX+8AE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4457DC6C05; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D89BC6C04; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:31:24 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git , Jeff King , Thomas Rast , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] perf/aggregate: implement codespeed JSON output References: <20171213151344.2138-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20171213151344.2138-4-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:31:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:57:05 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9BB7ABF6-E0F4-11E7-A43D-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: >> Aside from portability of 'uname -o' Eric raised, I wonder if the >> platform information is still useful even when perf-subsection is >> specified. With the above code, we can identify that a single >> result is for (say) MacOS only when we are not limiting to a single >> subsection, but wouldn't it be equally a valid desire to be able to >> track performance figures for a single subsection over time and >> being able to say "On MacOS, subsection A's performance dropped >> between release X and X+1 quite a bit, but on Linux x86-64, there >> was no such change" or somesuch? > > Yeah, I agree that it would be useful. Unfortunately it looks like the > number of fields in Codespeed is limited and I am not sure what will > be more important for people in general. Is there a reason why such textual labels meant for human consumption need to be two (or more) separate fields? Would simply concatenating them into a single string defeat whatever you wanted to achieve by having this information in $executable in the first place?