On 10/30/2013 03:41 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > 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 :-) > Thanks, if others are interested, the bug is: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711173 - Cole _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
