Commit Graph

8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Julius Volz 169c8a68e1 Use godep with import rewriting for vendoring.
The new vendoring was produced by running:

    godep save -r ./examples/... ./prometheus/... ./text/... ./model/... ./extraction/...

Two things to note:

- "extraction/processor0_0_{1,2}_test.go" imported a package from
  "github.com/prometheus/prometheus", all for just one tiny testing
  function. To not have to deal with a circular vendoring dependency, I
  simply replaced the usage of the function by some in-line logic.

- godep grouped the rewritten imports slightly differently for some
  reason, but at least the standard library imports are still in a
  separate section. Not sure if it's worth manually keeping our old
  import grouping scheme or if we should simply use that godep-generated
  one.
2015-02-26 00:47:03 +01:00
beorn7 a7c56882af Mark slow test as such and exclude them from travis. 2015-02-19 15:51:11 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein d7f8eb1083 Change "Prometheus Team" to "The Prometheus Authors". 2015-02-02 15:14:36 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein 31b6c1fe12 Make number notation consistent. 2015-01-21 15:24:34 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein 15c9ded5a3 Fix the summary decay by avoiding the Merge method.
This makes the Observe method of summaries more expensive. :-(
2015-01-21 13:44:43 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein 6b9530d72e Update vendoring of perks to newest (fixed) version.
Adjust the API and usage accordingly.
Make tests stricter.

Since the merging is still faulty, test are broken now.
The next commit will fix it by avoiding merging.
2015-01-20 18:27:10 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein 4c69ef579b Disable the timing-sensitive test TestSummaryDecay for now.
Obviously, the proper solution is to implement the test in a way that
does not depend on timing.
2014-12-18 18:05:06 +01:00
Bjoern Rabenstein 5d40912fd2 Complete rewrite of the exposition library.
This rewrite had may backs and forths. In my git repository, it
consists of 35 commits which I cannot group or merge into reasonable
review buckets. Gerrit breaks fundamental git semantics, so I have to
squash the 35 commits into one for the review.

I'll push this not with refs/for/master, but with refs/for/next so
that we can transition after submission in a controlled fashion.

For the review, I recommend to start with looking at godoc and in
particular the many examples. After that, continue with a line-by-line
detailed review. (The big picture is hopefully as expected after
wrapping up the discussion earlier.)

Change-Id: Ib38cc46493a5139ca29d84020650929d94cac850
2014-06-17 14:08:22 +02:00