On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Francois Bissey <francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > On 04/11/12 21:36, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2012-11-04 01:23, Francois Bissey wrote: >>> But nevertheless we have to just bit the bullet, do the best we can >>> and fix things as they become apparent. We cannot stop moving forward >>> because we are afraid to break stuff accidentally forever. >> OK, let's go for it! >> >> Do you want also other tickets like #12215 and #12313 or should we do >> just #715 + #11521? >> > > It may be best to do only one set of big changes at a time just not > confuse issues. But these two sets may be similar enough. > Any other opinions?
+1. I've always been meaning to get back to this for ages, but just haven't found the time. If we're going to make a big push to get this in, I'll do what I can to help. For testing, I would propose we manually insert gc operations periodically to see if we can reproduce the failures more frequently. We could then marks some (hopefully a very small number) parents as "unsafe to garbage collect" and go forward with this patch, holding hard references to all "unsafe" parents to look into them later (which isn't a regression). - Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
