Update lib.rs #477
Merged
Update lib.rs #477
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There seems to be a typo in the explanation of histograms. It says "50% of requests are slower than 500ms and 99% of requests are slower than [~2000ms]”. That doesn't make sense because the latter already implies the former. Flipping from "slower" to faster seems to make more sense statistically, but there may be an even better way to phrase this.
tobz
approved these changes
May 5, 2024
tobz
added
C-core
|
Released in Thanks again for your contribution. 🙏🏻 |
tobz
removed
the
S-awaiting-release
|
Thank you! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There seems to be a typo in the explanation of histograms.
It says "50% of requests are slower than 500ms and 99% of requests are slower than [~2000ms]”. That doesn't make sense because the latter already implies the former.
Flipping from "slower" to faster seems to make more sense statistically, but there may be an even better way to phrase this.