Remove notice about Turbopack toolchain progress

[xusd320]

This pull request makes a small update to the README.md file, removing the notice about the next-generation toolchain built on Turbopack.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @xusd320, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on refining the project's primary documentation by removing a specific notice related to the Turbopack toolchain. The change aims to maintain the README.md file's relevance and conciseness, ensuring that readers encounter only the most current and pertinent information about the project.

Highlights

• Documentation Update: Removed a notice regarding the Turbopack toolchain progress from the README.md file.

Changelog

• README.md
  • Removed a notice about Turbopack toolchain progress.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request removes a notice about the Turbopack toolchain progress from the README.md file. The change is straightforward and aligns with the description. Removing this notice, which appears to be outdated, helps to clean up the documentation and accurately reflects that Turbopack is an integral part of the project, not just a future plan. The change is good and I have no further comments.

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Benchmark Report (with-antd)

Utoopack Performance Report

Report ID: utoopack_performance_report_20260212_033339
Generated: 2026-02-12 03:33:39
Trace File: trace_antd.json (0.5GB, 3.18M events)
Test Project: examples/with-antd

---

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total Wall Time	7,945.3 ms	Baseline
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	24,827.7 ms	Non-overlapping busy time
Effective Parallelism	3.1x	thread_work / wall_time
Working Threads	5	Threads with actual spans
Thread Utilization	62.5%	🆗 Average
Total Spans	1,591,326	All B/E + X events
Meaningful Spans (>= 10us)	501,684	(31.5% of total)
Tracing Noise (< 10us)	1,089,642	(68.5% of total)

Note on Thread Work: Thread work is computed by merging overlapping intervals
per thread, eliminating double-counting from nested spans. This gives the true
wall-clock busy time across all threads.

Workload Distribution by Tier

Category	Tasks	Total Time (ms)	% of Thread Work
P0: Runtime/Resolution	0	0.0	0.0%
P1: I/O & Heavy Tasks	37,949	3,542.5	14.3%
P3: Asset Pipeline	29,254	3,389.7	13.7%
P4: Bridge/Interop	0	0.0	0.0%
Other	434,481	20,877.5	84.1%

Note: Percentages may sum to >100% because task durations include nesting
while thread work is de-duplicated. This is intentional for hotspot attribution.

---

Parallelization Analysis

Thread Utilization

Metric	Value
Working Threads	5
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	24,827.7 ms
Avg Work per Thread	4,965.5 ms
Effective Parallelism	3.12x
Thread Utilization	62.5%

Assessment: With 5 working threads, achieving 3.1x parallelism indicates significant loss of potential parallelism.

---

Top 20 Tasks by Total Duration

Total (ms)	Count	Avg (us)	Max (ms)	% Work	Task Name
7,901.0	178,415	44.3	12.5	31.8%	module
3,894.3	68,220	57.1	174.3	15.7%	process module
3,470.6	35,074	99.0	174.2	14.0%	analyze ecmascript module
2,804.3	24,390	115.0	61.7	11.3%	code generation
1,687.1	56,879	29.7	9.3	6.8%	resolving
1,658.1	60,802	27.3	9.0	6.7%	internal resolving
1,397.0	14,457	96.6	48.7	5.6%	chunking
1,379.4	29,238	47.2	21.8	5.6%	precompute code generation
1,254.7	13,332	94.1	134.5	5.1%	compute async module info
1,065.8	8,004	133.2	81.5	4.3%	parse ecmascript
520.5	4,733	110.0	49.9	2.1%	compute async chunks
327.3	1,936	169.0	16.8	1.3%	generate source map
69.3	656	105.6	18.6	0.3%	compute binding usage info
62.4	118	529.2	17.9	0.3%	make production chunks
59.9	2,167	27.6	1.7	0.2%	read file
56.2	1,873	30.0	7.6	0.2%	collect mergeable modules
33.4	8	4171.1	17.9	0.1%	compute merged modules
32.2	535	60.3	3.7	0.1%	async reference
31.5	14	2253.2	9.6	0.1%	apply effects
28.1	13	2162.2	9.5	0.1%	write file

---

Deep Dive by Tier

Tier 1: Runtime & Resolution (P0)

Focus: Task scheduling and dependency resolution.

Metric	Value	Status
Total Scheduling Time	0.0 ms	✅ Normal
Resolution Hotspots	0 distinct task types	Check Top Tasks

Potential P0 Issues:

• Thread utilization at 62.5% suggests critical path serialization or lock contention.
• 1,089,642 spans < 10us (68.5%) contribute to scheduler pressure.

Tier 2: Physical & Resource Barriers (P1)

Focus: Hardware utilization, I/O, and heavy monoliths.

Metric	Value	Status
I/O Work (Estimated)	3,542.5 ms	✅ Healthy
Large Tasks (> 100ms)	3	Minimal

Tier 3: Architecture & Asset Pipeline (P2-P3)

Focus: Global state and transformation pipeline.

Metric	Value	Status
Asset Processing (P3)	3,389.7 ms	13.7% of work
Bridge Overhead (P4)	0.0 ms	✅ Low

---

Duration Distribution

Range	Count	Percentage
< 10us (noise)	1,089,642	68.5%
10us - 100us	477,221	30.0%
100us - 1ms	20,508	1.3%
1ms - 10ms	3,869	0.2%
10ms - 100ms	83	0.0%
> 100ms	3	0.0%

---

Diagnostic Signal Summary

Signal	Status	Finding
Tracing Noise (P0)	⚠️ Significant	68.5% of spans < 10us
Thread Utilization (P0)	🆗 Average	62.5% utilization
Heavy Monoliths (P1)	✅ Minimal	3 tasks > 100ms
Asset Pipeline (P3)	Review	3,389.7 ms total
Bridge/Interop (P4)	Low	0.0 ms total

---

Action Items (P0-P4)

1. [P0] Profile lock contention to address 37% lost parallelism
2. [P1] Breakdown heavy monolith tasks (>100ms) to improve granularity
3. [P1] Review I/O patterns for potential batching opportunities
4. [P3] Optimize asset transformation pipeline hot-spots
5. [P4] Reduce "chatty" bridge operations if interop overhead is significant

---

Report generated by Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent on 2026-02-12
Following: Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent Protocol