From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23248 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2012 19:10:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 30862 Received: (qmail 26595 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2012 19:10:16 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: neutral (ns1.primenet.com.au: 209.85.212.179 is neither permitted nor denied by SPF record at ntlworld.com) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-proxyuser-ip:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=9+9ryeW56Sm1bnsmvs5KS9Hpk0u4cptPXUyvMGZ00Vs=; b=XCQ7kUacGyswYmXIWHbs2W27Ei+ApIDUcskXVkOgPWK0sgZw2gIJeLaZ1v5SM2CBas kxGRpBubCKdzvPKA0EQZ15nkKzyLd6Lu0sPtH7A9KLs7JpV3CNy4h+1iQIhA08d5i+ht TGKMXseiFKILH4iOfi6SRSiM48kjroO4YxlktfGJ7aXRPEhLaSermMbJLnkEZDIq2fvG uyqpwcF3UN+p262IfkLb/OYbSO5LkelXw5YGmF8yD0qPu+sCA9cZvJJiCkNtp3zsDAgu 7+IkqE0c2rMTv6D4pEwqOAMmfnuOlLZ3y/Mzz3NdiiVpfxpI8CeH8yzmH3du1/9pWZEy 4xyw== X-ProxyUser-IP: 82.8.55.192 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 19:10:05 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: "Zsh Hackers' List" Subject: Re: It's time for 5.0.1 Message-ID: <20121209191005.27a7ba33@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <121208115416.ZM27266@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20121206194404.698168c9@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <121208115416.ZM27266@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmP5Wow9sis1gklqM9vCUUJFzc4/vf0lSwoyQKkkXa5JoTk9dODmxmtKkTOStMO/adgJrkx On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:54:16 -0800 Bart Schaefer wrote: > The only other > thing we might want to consider is [tweaked slightly] workers/30818. > The trouble is that as noted in 30826, it doesn't entirely solve the > underlying problem. On the other hand, it might improve common cases > enough to be worth applying while we think about optimizing freeheap(). Yes, I'd say it's worth committing, although I don't know where we go next. pws