Hi Neal, On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 08:44 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Already rejected proposal was submitted because big corporations > > weren't > > happy with the results. This is a VERY BAD precedent for Fedora. > > > > Actually, the Change owners were prepared to give up. I was the one > that pushed for it to be reconsidered I must say I find this rather odd. As you say there was an agreement on moving forward without frame pointers. And as far as I could see there was even an healthy discussion about alternative ways to get faster and more accurate unwinding/backtracing between the profiling and compiler/tools hackers. I don't mind if you would re-try to get this change in for f39 or f40 if it turns out those discussions about alternative unwinders didn't result in faster/better profilers. But trying to do it while multiple stackholders were away and unaware of this because it wasn't really announced doesn't feel good. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
