<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Performance improvements are indeed high on the priority list.
The first step will be to get some tests for UI performance so
that we can measure what progress we make (and don't regress). We
should have some of these later this year.</p>
<p>Like you noticed, there are many individual smaller things that
can add up, and there's generally no magic bullet to just it all
fixed at once. OTOH, there are some larger topics like making
proper use of multiple processes, process per tab like Firefox,
that have potential to speed things up significantly. I don't have
detailed timetable for that, though I'm hoping we can get there in
1-2 ESR releases.</p>
<p> -Magnus<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18-07-2019 11:42, Richard LEGER
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL=-NefOZODaKyLP0TaasLb=acF0uswrpn04P_i=sONU+qDrXw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Thunderbird (TB) team,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Startup performance issues have been plaguing TB for years
(7 years or more possibly) especially due to Lightning being
enabled... and it became worth in past years...</div>
<br>
Up to now the "false" assumption has been that all I/O happens
in one thread (ui, email core features in addition of Lightning)
causing too much processing... not responding issues...<br>
<br>
While this may have been partially true, tremendous progress
have been made so far in that regards within TB (e.g core
improvements, use of workers and async features helping if I am
not mistaking), so it had been more an aggravation of existing
underlying issues in Lightning than a root cause. <br>
<br>
Indeed I think such progress shadows the fact that Lightning
still contains bugs and design flaws (no blame on developers
here) that are mainly source of performance issues especially at
startup that are still not being analysed and addressed the way
they should (at least from end-users point of view) by
implementing long term fixes/solutions into that code so it
would performs "normally" ;-)<br>
<br>
<div>As an end-user, month ago, I have revealed (because
end-users could not take it any more!) bug <a
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1502923"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1502923</a>
(patch issued but backed out without further support) and bug
<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1543953"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1543953</a>
as the tip of the iceberg but received barely any support from
TB/Lightning dev teams so far or feedback on helping resolving
those long lasting and highlighted performance issues. It may
not be a priority for developers (in their time and resources
constraints) but it IS for many end-users...</div>
<div>[Update: there might be light at the end of the tunnel as
per new bug <a
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1567055"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1567055</a>
created today]<br>
</div>
<br>
From my impression, while it seems that lot of efforts (and
communication) are oriented new UI revamping and new features...
bugs fixing and especially those related to performance
(quality, reliability, speed) seems relegated to a lower
priority to some extent... while it should be in reverse
order...<br>
<br>
Currently are code reviews and new features subject to large
scaling tests to assess performance of code with large data sets
prior publishing it?<br>
Are performance issues detected (or reported) fixed immediately
or right after in next dev cycles?<br>
<br>
For two years TB quality and reliability had decreased
drastically, mainly due to lengthy discussion about governance
that put TB development and maintenance to a stall, it was kept
afloat by the remaining dev team and community (great thanks to
them!).<br>
<br>
As it is now past, shouldn't 2019 be the year where TB
reliability and performance are brought back to life and take
priority over new features? Wouldn't that be the best way to
bring back confidence (and contributors) in the project? Wasn't
it the priority for 2019 "Making Thunderbird fly faster" in the
first place, as I recall?<br>
<br>
Now that a new team is up and running, what is the plan to
tackle reliability and performance issues in TB especially those
linked to Lightning?<br>
<br>
Would (and could) time and resources be dedicated to them in
particular so they can finally be fixed once and for all in the
next few months?<br>
<br>
While Lightning is an add-on it provide a calendar features to
TB and therefore shall be considered as an essential Core
feature that need much care and attention ;-) I am not saying it
is not already (because it certainly is)... just that it needs
much more... especially performance wise... <br>
<br>
As of today it is still not possible to have 4-5 calDav
calendars (with thousands of items each) enabled and active at
the same time, above two, it cripples TB especially at
startup...<br>
<br>
Maybe a plan and timetable is already in place if that the case,
please advise and communicate on what can be expected...<br>
Otherwise could a plan and timetable be established with clear
goals and results to clear any performance issues in TB
due to Lightning especially,
as a priority?<br>
<br>
<div>It may be a wishful thinking but plan, support and fixes on
the performance matters would be greatly appreciated by
end-users...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Looking forward to seeing Thunderbird fly fast in 2019!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Richard</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>