Hi Paul,
On 7/19/2016 12:00 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>> The quick test with the offending patch removed looked good. It just
>> found the already reported memory leak. I've started a more
>> comprehensive test on whole branch -- will take a~2.5 hours to run.
> Cool.
>
> I'll shuffle that from 'ff' to a 'nits' branch. And also have a look at
> the 'make check' one Martin reported and see if about shuffling a fix in
> after it - or squashing one in.
thanks.
> I gather people want any such rebased head to have a new name ('ffv2'?),
> rather than re-using the old label for a new, non-fast-foward-mergable
> head?
v2 would be great.
>> I'm also rerunning the step-wise basic (4min) regression through every
>> other commit to find the origin of the memory leak. -- just 109 (out
>> of 160) remaining!
> Ouch.
Actually not really a big deal at 4 min a run.
> For specific issues, git bisect can help. The '-x' argument to git
> rebase is also good (I try do a -x 'make -j3' rebase to at least check
> compile works - though there have been some patch-series submitted that
> don't compile on a per-commit basis).
The overall regression is done, and was pretty painless to automate.
I'll publish the detailed results when I have some time -- not this
week though...
Lou
> regards,
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
