| > There was a regression and it's bothering people, there really is no getting around that. The reason people are bothered though is based on a synthetic benchmark that blows this out of proportion. Someone's already pointed that out and things have calmed down. > However, personally, I feel that there should be a point release to revert the regression instead of waiting for a major release. And if there was a significant regression I'm sure that would happen. However, Go has set forward the way they do releases: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/Go-Release-Cycle More specifically: > A minor release is issued to address one or more critical problem for which there is no workaround (typically related to stability or security). The only code changes included in the release are the fixes for the specific critical problems. Important documentation-only changes may also be included as well, but nothing more. If this regression can be properly quantified to fall in those categories, then a point release will be issued to fix it. But an at-worst half a micro-second overhead on a synthetic hello-world benchmark really doesn't fall into either of those categories. From that issue thread: > So from @OneOfOne's test, go tip made 5110713 requests in 30 seconds, that's 5.87us per request. Go 1.7.5 did 5631803 requests in 30 seconds, 5.33us per request. So when you compare those to eachother, that's like an 11% performance decrease. But if you look at it from an absolute perspective, that's a performance hit of just a half microsecond per request. I can't even imagine an HTTP service where this would be relevant. There are many people in the Go community that do canary deployments of their services on new Go versions throughout the whole cycle. If anything major really was related to this I'm fairly certain it would've been surfaced already. All that aside, this kind of benchmarking should have been done during the beta phase. It's even explicitly asked of the community to do so. No changes related to this were merged during the RC-cycle either. I can't find a single compelling reason why they should break the normal release cycle over this regression. |