A hard dependency on "hyperfine" for t/perf

> And there I think the whole "take the best run" strategy is hampering
> us. These inaccuracies in our timings go unseen, because we don't do any
> statistical analysis of the results. Whereas a tool like hyperfine (for
> example) will run trials until the mean stabilizes, and then let you
> know when there were trials outside of a standard deviation.
>
> I know we're hesitant to introduce dependencies, but I do wonder if we
> could have much higher quality perf results if we accepted a dependency
> on a tool like that. I'd never want that for the regular test suite, but
> I'd my feelings for the perf suite are much looser. I suspect not many
> people run it at all, and its main utility is showing off improvements
> and looking for broad regressions. It's possible somebody would want to
> track down a performance change on a specific obscure platform, but in
> general I'd suspect they'd be much better off timing things manually in
> such a case.
>
> So there. That was probably more than you wanted to hear, and further
> than you want to go right now. In the near-term for the tests you're
> interested in, something like the "prepare" feature I outlined above
> would probably not be too hard to add, and would address your immediate
> problem.