Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hmm, the problem is this was an important piece in working around a pygobject > memory leak. That leak is fixed in upstream pygobject (and probably rawhide, > but I haven't checked the version), but if we commit this now but push a > release to F20, that memory leak bit will regress. Thanks for the info. I thought it was safe to assume that this pygobject bug was fixed so we could just forget it. > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/commits-list/2012-October/msg03530.html > > And it sounds bogus here anyways, since we aren't passing any user data. So I > think it's a pygobject bug. We can carry this patch in rawhide temporarily but > I don't think we should push it upstream yet. > > The pygobject guys are very responsive upstream, if you boil down a minimal > reproducer and file a bug it'll likely be fixed very quickly. I've filed a bug against pygobject with a repro script, let's see what happens :-) Regards, Giuseppe _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
