And even if you had a number of patches ready to fix this, those would still be unlikely to be reviewed/committed in time for 3.2 unfortunately - the number of core developers who feel qualified patches touching more than a single distinct feature is extremely low, most core developers really only feel comfortable touching code that they've either written themselves or that they're at least somewhat familiar with. people able to troubleshoot/fix and review patches. In general, you are obviously right that this should be fixed ASAP, but in reality, FlightGear development is severely limited by available manpower, i.e. FlightGearįeel free to also add a link to your bug report there. Thus, I wouldn't hold my breath, filing a bug report was the right thing to do, and you can add a corresponding tag to the reset/re-init article here: Īlso note that a few of us have been working towards tracking memory usage per subsystems to better help track such issues much earlier - this is still being prototyped, but the general idea is summarized at. ![]() ![]() Hooray wrote:In my opinion, reset/re-init-related leaks are not that critical for the time being - reset/re-init is unlikely to be used very often given that this feature is not promoted widely, also its primary developer hasn't been seen on the devel list/forums (or commits logs) in months - in general, more involved issues are unlikely to be fixed by core developers who were not involved in implementing the feature - and in this case, the main core developer able to help review your bug report seems n/a currently, which makes it even more unlikely for the issue to be fixed in time for 3.2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |