Press Release? 8) On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:30 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey everyone, just a quick heads-up. Some of you may have read about a > memory leak that cropped up very late in Ubuntu 10.04 development > process. They kindly put this phrase in their explanation of the bug: > > "One possible solution is to roll back the GLX 1.4 enablement patches, > and the patch which caused the memory leak to appear. These GLX patches > were produced by RedHat and incorporated into Debian, they were not > brought in due to Ubuntu-specific requirements" > > which can obviously create the impression that the patches in question > actually come from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or from Fedora. > > Short story for the impatient: the problematic patch is not in any > version of Fedora and never has been, Fedora is not subject to this > memory leak and never has been. > > So if you see any stories drawing the implication that Fedora is also > subject to this leak, please feel free to correct them - it isn't. > > Longer version for the curious: I'm not sure about the claim that the > 'GLX 1.4 enablement patches' come from Red Hat, they may be in RHEL for > some reason, but they're not in Fedora; we wouldn't need to backport GLX > 1.4 from X server 1.8 to 1.7 as we're just shipping X server 1.8 in > Fedora 13 anyway. > > Regardless, the actual patch that caused the problem in Ubuntu was not > part of the GLX 1.4 backport, but was an attempt to fix this bug: > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26394 > > Sometimes X would crash when Clutter-based apps closed. Fedora did > actually suffer from this bug too: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579756 > > However, Ubuntu and Fedora took different approaches to fixing it. > Ubuntu seems to have jumped on one of Jesse Barnes' early attempts to > fix the problem (Jesse works for RH, hence the Red Hat link). In the > end, though, if you read the upstream bug, Jesse ceded to Kristian > Høgsberg (who, for the record, works for Intel), who provided a better > fix which was committed to upstream. For Fedora 13, we took Kristian's > fix, not any of Jesse's attempts. This was included in > xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-7.fc13 . That seems to have caused a couple of > problems with compositing managers: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584832 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577142 > > -7 was sent as a candidate update for F13, got bad Bodhi feedback (as > you'd expect) and was withdrawn; it never went into the 'stable' F13 > repo (the one from which the final F13 will actually be built). The bugs > were fixed by adding one more upstream patch, from Michel Dänzer: > > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-server/F-13/xserver-1.8.0-dri2-fix-handling-of-redirected-pixmaps.patch?view=markup > > to xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13 . That build has good feedback: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-server-1.8.0-8.fc13 > > and was pushed to F13 updates two days ago. So in summary our processes > worked very well, we didn't jump on an incomplete fix, we didn't push > the initial upstream fix to the 'stable' F13 because our feedback system > made us aware of the problems it caused, we did push the fully-working > fixed package when it was confirmed ready, and we were never at any > point subject to the memory leak issue. This is actually quite a nice > story of our QA processes working effectively, if someone's looking for > such a thing. =) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > marketing mailing list > marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing -- Nelson Marques Evil Clown (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm) -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
