Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>> I'm still in favor of "git revert" since the log message makes it clear >> which patch was reverted and why. "We" can then take our time and work >> out a proper fix, and finally re-merge the patch plus its fix. >> Furthermore, in the eventuality where none of us eventually finds a fix, >> `master' is left in the previous state, which is better IMO. > > 'master' in its previous states grows the heap to 600M doing the 1000-fold > version of srfi-18 test I posted. I think it's not a good solution. > > Commenting out the assert for x86-64 should yield better behavior. Alright, then please go ahead. Thanks, Ludo'.
