On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:13:34AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just landed bug 762449 on inbound, which enables Jemalloc 3 on the
> nightly channel. This puts us a step forward to removing mozjemalloc,
> our highly patched fork of jemalloc 0.9. More importantly, it will allow
> us to mor
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:44:19PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:13:34AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just landed bug 762449 on inbound, which enables Jemalloc 3 on the
> > nightly channel. This puts us a step forward to removing mozjemalloc,
> > our highly
On 1/12/2015 9:44 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Aaand as usual with such changes, it didn't stick.
Does that mean I should assume that whenever someone makes this sort of
announcement, I should assume they really mean "this will take effect
tomorrow or the day after, when I've figured out what went
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:13:34AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just landed bug 762449 on inbound, which enables Jemalloc 3 on the
> nightly channel. This puts us a step forward to removing mozjemalloc,
> our highly patched fork of jemalloc 0.9. More importantly, it will allow
> us to mor
Hi,
I just landed bug 762449 on inbound, which enables Jemalloc 3 on the
nightly channel. This puts us a step forward to removing mozjemalloc,
our highly patched fork of jemalloc 0.9. More importantly, it will allow
us to more closely work with upstream, by proposing patches that do
apply there (w
5 matches
Mail list logo