maybe their machines have more memory? maybe they didnt have the proper test? I dunno but i see it too...
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:22:07 -0400 > From: jhwe...@gmail.com > CC: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] ok wtf is this? > > A good way to follow what is happening in viewer-development is to > subscribe to the commit mailing list: > https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/viewer-development-commits > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave Booth <d...@meadowlakearts.com> wrote: > > On 9/5/2011 11:14 AM, Tateru Nino wrote: > >> > >> Indeedy. An excellent catch. If it _is_ the memory pool, though, it is > >> hard to figure out why unit-testing didn't catch the underlying fault. > > > > At a guess, and this is total speculation because I havent done any side > > by side test runs with the setting on and off yet followed by spelunking > > through the logs, I suspect that the easiest way to escape notice in the > > unit tests is if it's a flaw elsewhere that was masked by not using the > > memory pool - unit tests could easily not catch that, things like that > > usually show up in integration testing and UAT and well, that's what > > folks like me are for isn't it - pulling a new build every day and > > spending time inworld with it to see what breaks :) > > _______________________________________________ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > > privileges > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
